PEOPLE’S DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF ALGERIA

MINISTRY OF HIGHER EDUCATION AND SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH

UNIVERSITY OF FRÈRES MENTOURI, CONSTANTINE 1

FACULTY OF LETTERS AND LANGUAGES

DEPARTMENT OF LETTERS AND THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE

Thesis submitted to the Department of Letters and the English Language

in candidacy for the degree of LMD doctorate

in Linguistics and Applied Languages

By: Karima CHERGUI Supervisor: Prof. Hacène HAMADA

Board of Examiners:

Chairwoman: Prof. Farida ABDERRAHIM University of Constantine 1

Supervisor: Prof. Hacène HAMADA ENS of Constantine

Member: Prof. Youcef BEGHOUL University of Constantine 1

Member: Prof. Zahia MEBARKI University of Sétif 2

Member: Dr. Nadir KAOULI University of Batna

Member:Dr. Madjda CHELLI University of Constantine 1

2017

The Impact of Simulation Activities on Listening

and Speaking Proficiency Development: An

Experimental Study of Second Year Students of

English at the University of Frères Mentouri,

Constantine 1

N° ordre : 32/D3C/2018N° serie :06/Ang/2018

I

DEDICATION

To my beloved parents

To my brothers and sisters Zakaria, Islam, Fouzia, and Nada

To my aunt Soria

II

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I wish to express my gratitude and deepest appreciation to my supervisor Prof. Hacène

HAMADA, who believed in me and supported me throughout the present research. I would

like to thank him for supervising me in the time he had very busy schedule. Indeed, my

utmost sincere appreciation is devoted to him for giving me expert feedback which reflects his

long experience and exhaustive knowledge. He enlightened me on new vision of looking at

research work to be an enjoyable journey of learning and not hard tiring endless work.

I would like to extend my deepest appreciation to Prof. Farida ABDERRAHIM, Prof.

Youcef BEGHOUL, Prof. Zahia MEBARKI, Dr. Nadir KAOULI and Dr. Madjda CHELLI

for their acceptance to be members of the board of examiners and for their valuable

examination of the present thesis.

I wish to acknowledge my great debt to the Head of the Department, Mr.

BOUGHENOUT, for his great support and help in every way possible, and to the teachers of

Oral Expression at the Department of Letters and the English Language, University of Frères

Mentouri, Constantine 1, for the welcoming support they have shown me through the

collaboration in answering the questionnaire. Special thanks must go to Dr. Fatima Zohra

SEMAKDJI for accepting reviewing and scrutinizing my research materials, to Ms. Meriem

AMMI and Mrs Meriem ABID for their valuable feedback and the continued spiritual

sustenance during discouraging times to pursue my degree.

Last but certainly not least, I owe a debt of gratitude to second year students who took

part in the present study, without whose contribution, the conduct of this research would not

have been possible in the first place.

III

ABSTRACT

In the light of the increasing demand on communication, the motor of international

integration, oral communication has particularly become the foremost concern of English

language teachers. Simulation is considered one of the most potential activities; teachers

apply, to activate learners’ speaking and listening in the interaction process. The present

research investigates the impact of simulation activities on the teaching and learning of

speaking and listening at the Department of Letters and the English Language, University of

Frères Mentouri, Constantine 1. Indeed, this thesis sheds light on the students’ perception of

the benefits and challenges they encounter through simulation as well as teachers’ views and

recommendations for exploiting this activity in second year EFL classrooms. We hypothesize,

then, that when teachers apply simulation technique; this would develop second year EFL

students’ listening and speaking proficiency. We also hypothesize that applying simulation

teaching technique would stimulate students’ positive attitudes and interest. A sample pre and

post-test comparison study was used as a research methodology. In addition, this study is

based on a questionnaire that was distributed to 40 second year students of English. The

results reveal that the mean of communicative speaking testing scores in the post-test was

significantly higher than in the pre-test at .05 significant level with (t = 2.90) in Exp. G. 1 and

(t= 3.57) in Exp. G. 2. The first hypothesis is is consequently confirmed with slight

reservation about listening improvement which does not allow complete confirmation of the

first hypothesis. The Second hypothesis is validated as over 80% of students in both

experimental groups held positive attitudes towards simulation activities. Besides, most of the

teachers acknowledged their positive impact on students’ performance and the classroom

environment. Suggestions and recommendations are made as to how to improve and

maximise the teaching and learning advantages using simulation technique.

Keywords: Simulation activities, the speaking proficiency, the listening proficiency.

IV

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

CLT: Communicative Language Teaching

CL: Collaborative Learning

EAP: English for Academic Purposes

ESP: English for Specific Purposes

EGAP: English for General Academic Purposes

ESAP: English for Specific Academic Purposes

EFL: English as a Foreign Language

ESL: Second Language Learning

ELT: English Language Teaching

Exp. G.: Experimental Group

FL: Foreign Language

IQR: Interquartile Range

IRF: initiate-respond-follow up

L1: First Language

L2: Second Language

LLS: Language Learning Strategies

LMD: Licence Master Doctorate

Mdn: Median

N: Number of Students or Teachers

OE: Oral Expression

OPI: Oral Proficiency Interview

PBL: Problem-based learning

PPP: Presentation Practice Production

SLA: Second Language Acquisition

TBL: Task-based Learning

vs.: Versus

V

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Typology of listener feedback moves and likely speaker response(s)………...29

Table 2: Students’ personal profile.................................................................................148

Table 3: Students’ age.................................................................................................. ..148

Table 4: English learning time span................................................................................149

Table 5: Students’ reasons to learn English....................................................................151

Table 6: The Teaching frequency of language skills......................................................152

Table 7: The Students’ opinion about the most important skill/s to be studied..............153

Table 8: Materials used in Oral Expression....................................................................153

Table 9: The Effectiveness of the Oral Expression module in the improvement of

English.............................................................................................................................154

Table 10: Students’ chance to speak in the classroom....................................................154

Table 11: The Most frequent speaking activities used in Oral Expression class............156

Table 12: The Most frequent listening materials used in Oral Expression class............157

Table 13: Students’ opinion about the efficacy of listening materials............................157

Table 14: Students’ listening and speaking abilities.......................................................160

Table 15: Students’ speaking difficulties in experimental group 1.................................161

Table 16: Students’ speaking difficulties in experimental group 2.................................163

Table 17: Students’ need for speaking reinforcement courses........................................165

Table 18: Students’ favourite activities (experimental group 1).....................................166

Table 19: Students’ favourite activities (experimental group 2).....................................168

Table 20: Students’ assessment of their listening ability................................................170

Table 21: Students’ opinion about watching videos and listening to audio

recordings.........................................................................................................................171

Table 22: Students’ learning pattern in the classroom....................................................171

Table 23: Students’ ability to solve real-life problems and make decisions.............. …172

Table 24: Students’ desire to be prepared for real-life interactions................................172

VI

Table 25: Students’ opinion about their speaking improvement.....................................173

Table 26: Students’ chance to speak in English in the classroom during the

simulations........................................................................................................................173

Table 27: The Presence of simulations in the classroom in the previous year.................175

Table 28: Students’ view about the interactive nature of simulation activities............... 175

Table 29: Students’ opinion about the usefulness of simulation activities...................... 176

Table 30: Students’ enjoyment in the simulation............................................................. 176

Table 31: True/False claims.............................................................................................. 178

Table 32: Students’ speaking and listening abilities......................................................... 179

Table 33: Students’ favourite activities (experimental group 1)....................................... 181

Table 34: Students’ favourite activities (experimental group 2)....................................... 183

Table 35: Students’ assessment of their speaking………………………………………..185

Table 36: Students’ opinion about the improvement of their speaking difficulties

(experimental group 1)........................................................................................................186

Table 37: Students’ opinion about the improvement of their speaking difficulties

(experimental group 2)........................................................................................................188

Table 38: Students’ assessment of their listening...............................................................190

Table 39: Students’ desire about listening materials used in OE classroom.......................190

Table 40: The Impact of listening materials on students’ performance in the

simulations............................................................................................................................191

Table 41: Students’ opinion about watching and correcting their own performance

in the simulations..................................................................................................................191

Table 42: Students’ satisfaction of simulations...................................................................192

Table 43: Teachers’ degree..................................................................................................203

Table 44: Teaching experience............................................................................................204

Table 45: The provision of teaching materials.....................................................................205

Table 46: The language activities used in OE class.............................................................208

VII

Table 47: Video use in Oral Expression teaching..............................................................209

Table 48: Teaching listening comprehension in laboratories..............................................210

Table 49: The use of simulation activities in OE classroom...............................................214

Table 50: Numerical rating of the speaking proficiency rubric...........................................235

Table 51: Mean number of reception strategies observed by ACTFL Oral Proficiency Level

(Adapted from Vandergrift, 1997, p. 499)............................................................................236

Table 52: Mean number of reception strategies observed in both experimental groups in the

pre-test...................................................................................................................................237

Table 53: Mean number of reception strategies observed in both experimental groups in the

post-test.................................................................................................................................241

Table 54: Mean number of reception strategies observed in both experimental groups in the

delayed post-test....................................................................................................................244

Table 55: Descriptive statistics of the pre-test speaking skill mean score...........................247

Table 56: Descriptive statistics of the post-test speaking skill mean score..........................248

Table 57: The dependent t-test for speaking pre/post-test....................................................248

Table 58: Descriptive statistics of the delayed post-test speaking skill mean score.............249

Table 59: The dependent t-test for speaking post/delayed-test.............................................250

VIII

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Model of simulation and gaming, experiential language learning and

acquisition of professional competences …………………………………………………...54

Figure 2: Students’ opinion about the degree of the importance of English in

Exp. G.1 and Exp. G. 2 …………………………………………………………………....150

Figure 3: Students’ participation rate…………………………………………………......155

Figure 4: The students’ opinion about the importance of being able to speak and

Listen……………………………………………………………………………………… 158

Figure 5: Students’ participation rate after the intervention ……………………………...174

Figure 6: Speaking and listening teaching frequency ………………………………….... 206

Figure 7: Participation rate………………………………………………………………. .207

Figure 8: The teachers’ way of giving feedback…………………………………………..211

Figure 9: Students’ speaking Level ……………………………………………………… 212

Figure 10: Students’ listening level………………………………………………………. 212

Figure 11: Teachers’ views about their students’ speaking difficulties …………………...213

Figure 12: Teachers’ views about their students’ listening difficulties ………………….. 214

Figure 13: Teachers preference for role-play or simulation activity ……………………...215

Figure 14: The effectiveness of simulation activities in developing students’

speaking skill ………………………………………………………………………………216

Figure 15: The effectiveness of simulation activities in developing students’

listening skill………………………………………………………………………………. 216

Figure 16: Teachers’ opinion about the implementation of simulation activities in

second year Oral Expression syllabus…………………………………………………….. 217

Figure 17: Teachers’ opinion about the usefulness of the simulation activities

in OE classes ……………………………………………………………………………….219

IX

CONTENTS

GENERAL INTRODUCTION 1

1. Statement of the Problem 1

2. Aim of the Study 3

3. Research Questions 3

4. Research Hypotheses 3

5. Means of Research and Procedures 4

6. Structure of the Thesis 5

CHAPTER ONE: THE COMMUNICATIVE ORAL SKILLS

Introduction 8

1.1 The Construct of Speaking 8

1.1.1 Theories to Understanding of the Speaking Act 9

1.1.2 Speaking Paradigm: Comprehension, Production, and Interaction 13

1.1.3 The Nature of Spoken Language 14

1.1.3.1 Transactional Vs Interactional Talk 15

1.1.4 Speaking in Real Time 16

1.1.5 Teaching Speaking: From Communicative Language Teaching (CLT)

Perspective 18

1.1.5.1 Teaching Speaking Underlying Competence 22

1.2 The Construct of Listening 23

1.2.1 Definition of Interactive Listening 25

1.2.2 Teaching Listening Comprehension: From Communicative Language

Teaching (CLT) Perspective 28

1.2.3 Challenges for Teaching Listening 30

X

1.2.3.1 Listening Strategies 30

1.2.3.2 Real Speech 33

1.3 Integrative Teaching Format of Speaking and Listening 34

1.3.1 Activating Students’ Learning while Speaking and Listening 36

1.3.2 Speaking and Listening Activities 38

1.3.3 Assessing Speaking 40

1.3.4 Assessing Interactive Listening 43

Conclusion 44

CHAPTER TWO: SIMULATION TASK-BASED LEARNING AND TEACHING

Introduction 45

2.1 Definition of Simulation 45

2.1.1 Simulation vs. Role-play 47

2.1.2 Simulation Activities vs. Games 50

2.1.3 Experiential Theory and Simulation 50

2.1.4 Simulation and Communication 54

2.1.5 Simulation and Reality 56

2.1.6 Simulation vs. Real-life Task 57

2.2 Benefits of Simulations 57

2.3 Simulation Structure 62

2.3.1 Problem Solving 62

2.3.2 Critical Thinking 63

2.3.3 Decision Making 64

2.3.4 Negotiation 64

2.4 Simulation in ELT Context 65

2.4.1 Simulations in the Language Classroom 66

2.4.2 Simulation: Acquisition vs. Learning 67

XI

2.4.3 Preparing for Simulations 68

2.4.4 Simulation Activity and Motivation 69

2.4.5 The Use of Authentic Video in Simulation 71

2.4.6 Simulation as Language Assessment 73

2.5 Simulation Discourse Analysis 74

2.5.1 Grammatical Analysis 74

2.5.2 Functional Analysis 75

2.6 Researches Related to Simulation Activities 76

Conclusion 79

CHAPTER THREE: COMMUNICATION IN ACADEMIC CONTEXT:

CLASSROOM FOCUS

Introduction 80

3.1 English for Academic Purposes (EAP) 80

3.1.1 Communication for Academic Purposes 82

3.1.1.1 Verbal communication 83

3.1.1.2 Nonverbal communication 83

3.1.2 Communication in Academic Discourse and Style 84

3.1.3 Communication in the Language Classroom 88

3.1.3.1 Classroom Instruction 88

3.1.3.2 Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) 90

3.1.3.2.1 Language Theory 90

3.1.3.2.2 CLT: Moving from ‘Learning That’ to ‘Learning How’ 91

3.1.3.3 Pedagogical Implications of Communicative Language Ability 93

3.1.3.4 The Inclusion of Real Communication in the Classroom 97

3.1.3.4.1 Authenticity for Genuine Communication 97

XII

3.1.3.5 EAP Communicative Methodology 100

3.1.3.5.1 Communication and the EAP Learner’s Characteristics 102

3.1.3.5.2 Learner-centred Communicative Instruction 103

3.1.3.5.3 The Role of the Teacher in Classroom 104

3.1.3.5.4 The Role of the Learner in Classroom 105

3.1.3.6 Classroom Interaction 107

3.1.3.7 Cooperative and Collaborative Learning 110

3.1.3.8 Task-based Communication 112

3.1.3.9 Communicative Activities 113

3.1.3.9.1 Functional Communicational Activities 116

3.1.3.9.2 Social Interaction Activities 117

Conclusion 117

CHAPTER FOUR: PILOT STUDY AND EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

Introduction 119

4.1 The Pilot Study 119

4.1.1 Design and Implementation 120

4.1.2 Population and Sample of the Pilot Study 121

4.1.3 Results of the Pilot Study 121

4.2 The Main Investigation: Quasi-experimental Design 124

4.2.1 Population of the Study 125

4.2.2 Sampling 125

4.2.3 Duration 126

4.2.4 Objectives 126

4.2.5 Procedure 127

4.2.6 How Simulations Work in this Study 127

4.2.6.1 Role Assignment in the Simulation 130

XIII

4.2.6.2 Class Arrangement in the Simulation 131

4.2.6.3 Timing in the Simulation Activities 132

4.2.6.4 The Six Simulations in this Study: Authenticity of the Instruction 132

4.2.6.5 The Use of Multimedia in the Simulation Activities 134

4.2.6.6 The Language Focus in the Simulations 136

4.2.6.7 The Debriefing 137

4.2.6.7.1 Using Video Recording as a Tool of Assessment 137

4.2.7 Simulation Lesson Model 138

4.2.8 Spoken Data Collection Procedure 143

Conclusion 143

CHAPTER FIVE: STUDENTS’ QUESTIONNAIRE ANALYSIS

Introduction 144

5.1 Description of the Questionnaire 144

5.2 Procedure 146

5.3 Analysis and Discussion of the Results 146

5.3.1 Analysis and Discussion of the Pre-questionnaire Results 146

5.3.2 Analysis and Discussion of Post-questionnaire Results 172

5.4 Interpretation of the Pre-questionnaire Results 192

5.5 Interpretation of Post-questionnaire Results: A comparison of the Pre/Post Results 194

Conclusion 197

CHAPTER SIX: TEACHERS’ QUESTIONNAIRE ANALYSIS

Introduction 199

6.1 The Sample 199

6.2 Description of the Questionnaire 200

XIV

6.3 Analysis and Discussion of the Results 201

6.4 Interpretation of the Results 220

Conclusion 225

CHAPTER SEVEN: INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS AND RESEARCH

FINDINGS

Introduction 226

7.1 Brief Explanation of the Experiment 226

7.2 Validity, Reliability, and Generalizability in the Present Study 227

7.2.1 Validity of the Present Study 227

7.2.2 Reliability 228

7.3 Description of the Test 229

7.4 Procedure 230

7.4.1 Spoken Assessment Procedure: Marking System 231

7.4.2 Listening Assessment Procedure 234

7.5 Analysis and Interpretation of the Results 236

7.5.1 Listening Pre-test Results 236

7.5.1.1 Comparison of the Results Obtained by the Experimental Group 01and the

Experimental Group 02 in the Listening Pre-test 238

7.5.2 Listening Post-test Results 240

7.5.2.1 Comparison of the Results Obtained by the Experimental Group 01 and the

Experimental Group 02 in the Listening Pre/Post-test 242

7.5.3 Listening Delayed Post-test Results 243

7.5.3.1 Comparison of the Results Obtained by the Experimental Group 01 and the

Experimental Group 02 in the Listening Delayed Post-test 245

7.5.4 Speaking Pre-test Results 246

7.5.5 Speaking Post-test Results 247

XV

7.5.5.1 Comparison of the Results Obtained by the Experimental Group 01 and the

Experimental Group 02 in the Speaking Pre/Post-test 247

7.5.6 Speaking Delayed Post-test 248

7.5.6.1 Comparison of the Results Obtained by the Experimental Group 01 and the

Experimental Group 02 in the Speaking Delayed Post-test and Delayed Post-test 249

7.6 Discussion of the Results 250

7.6.1 Listening Proficiency Results 250

7.6.2 Speaking Proficiency Results: A Qualitative Analysis 253

7.7 Pedagogical Implications 258

7.7.1 The Advantage and the Effectiveness of Simulation Activities 258

7.7.2 The Pedagogical Principles of Teaching Speaking and Listening through Simulation

Activities 260

7.8 Pedagogical Recommendations 263

7.9 Limitations of the Study 266

Conclusion 267

GENERAL CONCLUSION 269

LIST OF REFERENCES 272

APPENDICES

Appendix I: The Pilot Pre-questionnaire

Appendix II: The Pilot Post-questionnaire

Appendix III: EFL Students’ Pre-questionnaire

Appendix IV: EFL Students’ Post-questionnaire

Appendix V: Teachers’ Questionnaire

Appendix VI: Experimental Groups’ Pre-test Framework of Speaking

Appendix VII: Experimental Groups’ Post-test Framework of Speaking

XVI

Appendix VIII: Experimental Groups’ Delayed Post-test Framework of Speaking

Appendix IX: Interactional Strategy Checklist (Vandergrift, 1997)

Appendix X: Analytic Speaking Rubric

Appendix XI: Simulation Lesson Plans

Appendix XII: Students’ Pre/Post-test and Delayed Post-test Video Recordings DVD

Appendix XIII: Simulation Video Recordings DVD

Appendix XIV: Transcripts of the Pre-test Performances (Experimental group 1 and

Experimental group 2)

Appendix XV: Transcripts of the Post-test Performances (Experimental group 1 and

Experimental group 2)

Appendix XVI: Transcripts of the Delayed post-test Performances (Experimental group 1 and

Experimental group 2)

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

1. Statement of the Problem 1

2. Aim of the Study 3

3. Research Questions 3

4. Research Hypotheses 3

5. Means and Research and Procedures 4

6. Structure of the Thesis 5

1

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

1. Statement of the Problem

In spite of the fact that the ultimate aim of language teaching is to enable learners to use

the language they have learned to communicate to the world outside the classroom, language

teaching focuses on teaching about the language and not about what learners do with the

language. The foremost problem appears to be how to prepare efficient learners to be able to

handle the real-world language use properly, that is to say, enabling the students to become

vigorous participants in different positions in the professional as well as academic situations.

Recently, it has been realised that active learning, that is to say learning by doing, becomes

the cornerstone of learning experience as acquired knowledge needs generic skills to be at

work any time the learners call for language use.

Due to the increasing demand over professionalism in communication in varied

conversational contexts, all language skills in general and the speaking and the listening skills

in particular are considerably required by EFL students because they are supposed to receive

and understand an input (listening), and produce appropriate output (speaking) in real oral

communication settings. As a result, the need for competence in listening and speaking is the

goal of course designers as well as teachers. Nevertheless, unfortunately, teachers and learners

tend to neglect the value of listening in the process of communication. In addition to that the

area of teaching listening comprehension is perceived as the least researched skill despite its

importance in L2 learning. Moreover, in spite of the fact that “listening must be done in real

time” (Brown, 2006, p.4), Algerian EFL students have fewer opportunities to focus on

listening in face-to-face interactions in the classroom because one way listening (watching

television, listening to audio, video, and radio podcasts) is the dominating teaching method.

Reviewing the pedagogical recent practices, interactive language teaching seems to find its

way to EFL classes to remedy the disorder of the teaching of listening. The adoption of

2

interaction in Oral Expression class, which integrates speaking and listening and promotes

communication skills, has led to a considerable label change. As a result, interactive listening

replaces one-way listening which teachers focus on in the few occasions they teach listening.

To justify the new labelling, Vandergrift (1997) says that emphasizing interactive listening in

ordinary social discourse, lead to a more general and important role in L2 classrooms.

Furthermore, the same author (2004) argues that interactive listening is the technique that

listeners engage in most frequently.

This study puts essentially two points at issue; the first is the discernibility of language

knowledge in the outside world and the second is the possibility of teaching both the speaking

and listening skills together to share mutual influence against which the manifestation of

language in real-life conversational settings could be achieved. The nature of the two

aforementioned problems urges to investigate the ways to teaching integrative listening and

speaking format in real-life situations in EFL Algerian classrooms. Researchers agreed, thus,

on active teaching and learning methodologies in general and simulation methodology in

particular as it models real-life situations where speaking and listening are interactively used

to activate effective communication as a need to achieve different functional purposes and not

as a goal per se (Jones, 1982).

In spite of the fact that simulation activity “ideally suited to language practice”(Jones,

1982, p. 2) and simulations and language are “virtually inseparable”(Jones, ibid, p. 7), this

method has grown rapidly in the pedagogical non-ELT literature such as agricultural

economics (Blank, 1985; Madsa, 2012), thus, there seems to be a paucity of research on the

impact of this method on developing EFL learners’ language competence on a broader front

and speaking skills and listening comprehension ability on a narrower front. Simulation is

then applied in this study to second year students of English at the Department of Letters and

the English Language, University of Frères Mentouri, Constantine 1 in order to boost

3

students’ oral communicative competence by giving particularly more importance to speaking

and listening proficiency.

2. Aim of the Study

Based on the problems stated in the previous section, this study aims to investigate the

effectiveness of using simulation as a classroom activity on Algerian EFL learners’ speaking

and listening ability. More specifically, this study has two main objectives; first to prove the

efficacy of simulation activities in developing students’ speaking and listening proficiency,

particularly, for second year students of English at the department of Letters and the English

Language, University of Frères Mentouri, Constantine 1, second to study the students’

interests and attitude towards the impact of simulation activity on teaching the speaking and

listening skills.

3. Research Questions

The following are the questions that are to be answered in the present study:

-Do second year Oral Expression teachers at the department of Letters and the English

language use simulation activities in their classes?

- What are the teachers’ views about implementing simulation activities in oral expression

in second year syllabus?

-Do simulation techniques improve the students listening / speaking and communication

skills? And

-Do simulation techniques improve the students’ interest and attitudes?

4. Research Hypotheses

In the light of the present research concerns, tow hypotheses have been made. We

hypothesise that when teachers apply simulation technique in second year EFL classrooms,

this would develop students’ listening and speaking proficiency. We further hypothesize that

4

applying simulation teaching technique would stimulate second year students’ interests and

positive attitudes.

5. Means of Research and Procedures

The data, needed for validating the research hypotheses, are collected using two

questionnaires and a quasi-experiment. More specifically, in an attempt to answer the

questions about the teachers’ views about the simulation activity and the students’ attitudes

towards this activity, we opted for questionnaires that seek for qualitative data, while for the

hypothesis which is concerned with the effectiveness of the simulation activity, a one group

pre-test/post-test quasi-experimental design is applied for a quantitative analysis. In order to

add more reliability to this research, two different experimental groups were enrolled in the

experiment. Both groups of students received the same learning condition, so that their oral

performances can be fairly compared. Both are provided with instruction of multiple

simulation activities for about three months (12 weeks). The instructional period is meant to

acquaint learners with this technique and to give enough time to judge its influence. The pre-

test, post-test and the questionnaire of the students are administered in two different points of

time, that is immediately before and after the intervention. The pre-test aims at collecting data

about the students’ actual level in speaking and listening before the intervention. The post-test

intends to check the improvement of the dependent variables (speaking and listening

proficiency in relation to the manipulated independent variable (simulation activities), by

comparison with the pre-test results. The pre-questionnaire serves to elicit information about

students’ interest in language learning and attitudes about the language activities which have

been used in Oral Expression classes, whereas the post-questionnaire, which is administered

after the intervention, provides data which would confirm the foreseeable changes in students’

interests and attitudes after dealing with all the simulation activities.

5

A teachers’ questionnaire is administered to the Oral Expression teachers, particularly

those who teach or have taught second year students. It intends to give a clear insight about

whether they use simulation activities in their classes and their opinion about the usability and

efficacy of simulation activities to develop second year students’ oral/aural skills. This

questionnaire also attempts to elicit the teachers’ views about the implementation of

simulation activities in second year Oral Expression syllabus to boost students’ learning.

6. Structure of the Thesis

The study is developed in seven chapters that are consecutively content-interrelated.

The first three chapters deal with the literature review. The thesis ends with the practical

framework which is developed in four chapters. The first chapter “The Communicative Oral

Skills” focuses on the speaking construct in relation to communicative competence and the

listening construct in the light of its interactive nature. It shows that speaking and interactive

listening can be taught interactively when the aim is to attain effective communication. It also

suggests the activities that adhere to the integrative teaching format which this chapter adopts.

Furthermore, this chapter deals with the approaches to assessing speaking and listening in

interactive real-life situations.

The second chapter “Simulation Task-based Learning and Teaching” sheds light on the

instructional area of the research. It elicits the definition of simulation activity on a broader

front, including its relation with experiential learning theory, communication, reality and real-

life task. The chapter devotes, specifically, a considerable attention to the difference between

simulation activity, role-play and games. It also considers the benefits of the simulation

activity. Simulation task in ELT context is discussed in this chapter along with this

technique’s applications in the classroom. Interestingly, this chapter casts some light on the

way simulation activity is used as a way of assessment.

6

Communication for academic purposes is the main concern of the third chapter

“Communication in Academic Context: Classroom Focus”. This chapter describes

communication in academic discourse and style and emphasizes the way this communication

is incorporated in the language classroom. The overlapping areas between Communicative

Language Teaching (CLT) and the EAP methodology are then discussed, notably,

authenticity, real-life communication, teachers/learners’ role, and cooperative and

collaborative learning in task-based communication are the main areas this chapter reviews in

relation to simulation methodology principles.

Chapter four, “Pilot study and Experimental Design”, is devoted to the description of

the experimental design which is basically developed in two sections. The first section speaks

about the pilot study, its shortcomings, its results and its implications in the main study. A

brief explanation of the experimental design and the sampling procedure belongs to the

second section. In addition to that this section involves a thorough explanation of how the

instruction (the six simulation activities used in this study) in this experiment works.

“EFL Students’ Questionnaire Analysis” is dealt with in chapter five. This chapter is

concerned with the students’ questionnaire. It starts with a description of the questionnaire

and the procedures of its administration. A deep analysis of all the pre/post-questionnaires is

followed. Finally, the fifth chapter suffices a generic analysis of the results which deals

basically with a comparison of the pre/post test results and interpretations of the questionnaire

feedback.

Chapter six, “Teachers’ Questionnaire Analysis”, is concerned with the teachers’

questionnaire. Firstly, this chapter deals with investigating whether the Oral Expression

teachers use or have used the simulation activities in their classes in addition to their views

about their effectives in second year Oral Expression classes, after describing the sample and

7

the questionnaire. Secondly, it provides an analysis and interpretation of the questionnaire

results.

Chapter seven “Interpretation of Results and Research Findings” aims at presenting a

practical part of the study. It intends to measure the impact of using simulation activities on

students speaking and listening proficiency. Moreover, it presents the analysis and

interpretation of the results obtained from the experiment, more specifically from the

comparable results found in the pre-test and post-test conditions which reveal that simulation

activity is completely effective in developing both speaking and listening. The findings were

confirmed by the teachers who despite the fact they use this technique restrictively in the Oral

Expression class, they believe in the necessity to implement them. Students likewise held

positive attitudes after they dealt with the simulation activities. Thus, all the hypotheses stated

in this study are confirmed. Based on the results obtained from all the aforementioned

chapters, some implications of the present research are drawn. Some pedagogical practices are

highlighted especially about the importance of simulation activities in stimulating the EFL

learner. It also foretells the recommendations for future research that essentially stress

classroom constraints, students’ availability for innovation in learning, and the possible

domains that simulation activity may be used in. Finally, research limitations about the timing

in the simulation activities, sample characteristics and materials are dealt with.

CHAPTER ONE:

THE COMMUNICATIVE ORAL SKILLS

Introduction 8

1.1 Speaking Construct 8

1.1.1 Theories to Understanding of the Speaking Act 9

1.1.2 Speaking Paradigm: Comprehension, Production, and Interaction 13

1.1.3 The Nature of Spoken Language 14

1.1.3.1 Transactional Vs Interactional Talk 15

1.1.4 Speaking in Real Time 16

1.1.5 Teaching Speaking: From Communicative Language Teaching (CLT)

Perspective 18

1.1.5.1 Teaching Speaking Underlying Competence 22

1.2 The Construct of Listening 23

1.2.1 Definition of Interactive Listening 25

1.2.2 Teaching Listening Comprehension: From Communicative Language

Teaching (CLT) Perspective 28

1.2.3 Challenges for Teaching Listening 30

1.2.3.1 Listening Strategies 30

1.2.3.2 Real Speech 33

1.3 Integrative Teaching Format of Speaking and Listening 34

1.3.1 Activating Students’ Learning while Speaking and Listening 36

1.3.2 Speaking and Listening Activities 38

1.3.3 Assessing Speaking 40

1.3.4 Assessing Interactive Listening 43

Conclusion 44

8

Chapter One: The Communicative Oral Skills

Introduction

As one of the major purposes of learning foreign languages, particularly English, is the

ability to communicate meaningfully and effectively with other users of the target language,

this chapter foregrounds both the speaking and listening skills in foreign language instruction.

The activation of the learners’ learning in relation to the appropriate language teaching

practices has been assigned a considerable value in this review. Noteworthy, this chapter does

not present merely the rational of the process of listening and speaking, but attempts to bridge

the gap between successful listening comprehension and speaking production by focusing on

specific conditions for oral interaction (e.g. real life tasks, language strategies, integration of

both skills in the teaching process, and their assessment).

1.1 The Construct of Speaking

Speaking is perceived as an indispensable skill for foreign language learners and it is

coined with the mastery of language (Bygate, 1987), since it is popularly assumed that

knowing or learning a language centrally involves being able to ‘speak’ it. Conventionally,

within the audio-lingual approach, speaking means uttering words or to be more precise, it

starts centrally with the pronunciation of phonemes. According to Harmer (2008) speaking is

more than pronouncing phonemes correctly; however, it refers to the ability to use a range of

conversational strategies in functional exchanges. He (ibid) adds that speaking is no more

than using a language for a purpose with given participants. Hence, speaking is coined with

the act of communicating specific goals with a partner in social situations. In other words, it

refers to the interactional process where both speaker and listener manipulate meaning with

the purpose of communication.

Considering the prior definitions, speaking can be defined in terms of grammar,

phonology features as well as interactive aspects, hence, the shifts from the bottom-up

9

linguistic view (starting from the smallest sound units to individual words and then semantic

meaning) to top-down view schematic view (using background knowledge and the context) to

define speaking became clear. Far more vision of speaking includes the special nature of

speaking that according to Luoma (2004) expressed in the form of spoken grammar and

spoken vocabulary.

1.1.1 Theories of the Understanding of the Speaking Act

The influential work of the generative-grammarian Chomsky brought the focus on the

perfect innate ability which is shared by all languages (Universal Grammar) to the front.

Chomsky considered competence, over performance, as a focal factor in the language

exploration. Noam Chomsky asserts (1965):

Linguistic theory is concerned primarily with an ideal speaker-listener, in a completely

homogeneous speech community, who knows its language perfectly and is unaffected

by such grammatically irrelevant conditions as memory limitations, distractions, shifts

of attention and interest, and errors (random or characteristic) in applying his

knowledge of the language in actual performance. (p. 3)

Chomsky, by this assertion, makes a distinction between speaker’s ideal linguistic knowledge

(competence) and language that speakers actually produce (performance). He establishes that

the speaker-listener’s internal grammar that judges the grammaticality of sentences should be

the main object of investigation for linguists. Later in the history of linguistic enquiry, Austin

(1962) developed the theory that accounts for language use in real communication. Austin

focused the attention on patterns of interaction, that is, how listeners interpret the speakers’

intentions of their utterances. In 1975, Grice, in the same line of thought as Austin, provided

another understanding which relates the inference of utterances meaning to contextual factors

and principles. Accordingly, Grice proposed the cooperative principle in the form of four

maxims:

10

- Quality (try to make your contribution one that is true)

- Quantity (make your contribution as informative as necessary, but not more)

- Relevance (do not say what if not relevant)

- Manner (be brief and orderly, avoid obscurity and ambiguity) (pp. 45-46)

Social communication, then, governed the understanding of oral communication. Thus,

how far speaking is manifested in terms of appropriateness in social context was stressed by

Hymes (1972). Hymes (1972) was inspired by the Chomskyan account of competence and

performance and their interrelationship and a continuum of Austin and Grice’s work. Hymes

(1972) defines communicative competence as language user's grammatical knowledge of

syntax, morphology and phonology, as well as social knowledge about how and when to use

utterances appropriately. In other words, he argues that there are competences that go beyond

the Chomskyan linguistic competence. He (ibid) proposes that we should study the knowledge

that people have when they communicate messages in social contexts. Hymes’s definition

clearly demonstrates a shift of emphasis, away from the study of language as a structural

system in isolation, the main focus of Chomsky (1965) work, towards the study of language

as communication through extending its scope to include contextual appropriateness.

Many scholars such as Canale and Swain (1980), Bachman (1990) and Celce-Murcia et

al. (1995) and (1997), later, further developed the theoretical grounding of communicative

competence and attempted to redefine and refine Hymes’s original construct of this

competence to make it instructionally tangible and relevant to language teaching. Canale &

Swain (1980) investigated the components of the native speakers’ communicative competence

and the way that they could be incorporated into ELT syllabus design. The widely common

model proposed by Canale and Swain (1980), includes three-component framework for

communicative competence. Canale (1983) extends them to become four component

competences:

11

Grammatical competence refers to the knowledge of the linguistic system of the target

language; it is what Chomsky referred to as linguistic competence. It indicates learners’

grammatical and lexical capacity.

Sociolinguistic competence refers to an understanding of the social context in which

communication takes place, includes understanding of socio-cultural rules of language use in

a particular context, role relationships, the shared information of the participants, and the

communicative purpose for their interaction.

Discourse competence refers to the interpretation of individual message elements in

terms of their interconnectedness and of how meaning is represented in relationship to the

entire discourse or text in order to achieve coherence and cohesion in a spoken or written

discourse)

Strategic competence refers the ability to employ various strategies effectively to

initiate and terminate communication and repair communication breakdowns.

On the other hand, Bachman (1990) provides a different model of communicative

language ability that is composed of three components, namely language competence,

strategic competence and physiological mechanisms. The former comprises two further

components: organizational which consists of grammatical and textual competence (discourse

competence as in Canale and Swain’s model (1980), besides, pragmatic competence which

consists of illocutionary competence and sociolinguistic competence. Organizational

competence refers to knowledge of speech acts and language functions and pragmatic

competence refers to the knowledge of how to use language functions appropriately in a given

context. Apart from language competence, the model also includes strategic competence and

physiological mechanisms. The former refers to the mental capacity to implement language

competence appropriately in the situation in which communication takes place. In this

concern Skehan (1998) asserts that the capacity underlying Bachman’s strategic competence

12

is partly cognitive because of the nature of the operations it involves and metacognitive in the

other part since there can be self-awareness built into these operations. Whereas, the latter

(psychological) refers to the neurological and psychological processes that are involved in

language use. Celce-Murcia et al. (1995) provided their own division of communicative

competence into linguistic, sociocultural, strategic, discourse and actional competencies. In

this model, discourse competence is described as the core competence of communicative

competence; hence, it overwhelms all the remaining competencies, furthermore, all

competences are interrelated. Discourse competence refers to the ability of selecting and

sequencing sentences to achieve unified and coherent written or spoken discourse. Linguistic

competence is defined as the basket that entails the basic elements of communication, like

sentence patterns, morphological inflections, phonological and orthographic systems, as well

as lexical resources. Sociocultural competence refers to the speaker’s knowledge of how to

express appropriate messages within the social and cultural context. Actional competence

involves the understanding of the speakers’ communicative intent by performing and

interpreting speech acts. Finally, these four components are influenced by the last one,

strategic competence, which is concerned with the knowledge of communication strategies

and how to use them.

By analysing the former different components of communicative competence that are

provided by pioneers of communicative language teaching in the era 1980-1997, it is deduced

that communicative competence, the motto of communicative language teaching, is based on

the same features of native language knowledge. In essence, any subdivision of

communicative competence is extracted from Hymes prevailed explanation of communicative

competence as the knowledge of both rules of grammar and rules of language use appropriate

to a given context are rooted from various hybrid disciplines such as structural linguistics,

sociolinguistics, discourse analysis/pragmatics and psycholinguistics. From each earlier

13

discipline, tenets and principles are taken to constitute communicative competence

components in order to teach various language skills, mainly speaking as the communicative

competence components are clearly implied in speaking because communication is centrally

demonstrated through speaking. In fact, there is no such neat borders exist between these

competences.

1.1.2 Speaking Paradigm: Comprehension, Production, and Interaction

Earlier evaluation and criticism of Krashen’s (1985) input hypothesis has led to a focus

on language production rather than comprehension. The input hypothesis says that

comprehensible input and meaningful materials are necessary for language learning, in

particular for speaking. Hence, listening was the only way to speaking (Krashen, ibid). The

message in the input is all that is needed to acquire the language and hence to speak. Swain

(1985) asserts that comprehension-based instruction was unnecessary, insufficient, and

inefficient. Swain’s criticism is due to the fact that how does comprehension “influence

underlying interlanguage and generalize to production” (Skehan, 1998, p. 13) is not clear.

Input can provide the platform for speaking, however; it can never provide the skeleton that

explains speaking. She (ibid) then proposes the comprehensible output hypothesis. According

to her, listeners need to know how meaning is expressed in speech and to use this knowledge

that includes interlocutors’ feedback to develop the quality of input as the basis for later

production. This revolutionary exposition of speaking gave the first insight to the necessity of

interaction in opposition to transaction to use input for production, thus, interaction, the motor

of production and feedback, is compulsory for the language use to move from comprehension

to production. On this account, Long (1996) puts that interaction facilitates comprehension of

speech and negotiation of meaning. The human communication indicates what Long has

launched, besides, a clear instance for this claim is that in classroom settings, the students’

input is modified through negotiation, which allows not only comprehension of input but also

14

manipulation of form (Yu, 2008).This claim turns counter to Krashen’s Input Hypothesis,

which stresses the fact that simplified input is the key for second language acquisition.

Furthermore, Skehan (1998) points out that conversation is seen as the mechanism to extend

the interlanguage use, provide feedback, and use learning strategies to encode meaning (p.

20).

Language production starts to take a broad definition exceeding the act of producing

meaningful language to the negotiation of meaning. The evidence is what O’Malley and

Valdez Pierce (1996) put in their words “speaking means negotiating intended meanings” (p.

59). Bygate (1987) also claims that to ensure negotiation of meaning, speakers should be

careful for the word choice and level of explicitness to make the listener understands (p.19).

The view in Bygate’s claim is that output should be carefully constructed to result in well-

developed input that explains the meaning expression and gives opportunity to the listener to

co-participate in the negotiation. Bygate (ibid) further adds that “negotiation of meaning

concerns not only how much information is communicated, but also how specific we are in

what we say” and in order to ensure that, communication strategies to solve communication

problems and enable the speaker and listener to make themselves clearly understood, are

prerequisite (Bygate, ibid, pp.32-33). Skehan (ibid) accentuates this claim by saying that

“solving communicative problems engages a language learning capacity directly” (p. 22).

Thus, language production (speaking), namely in second language acquisition, and

negotiation of meaning rely on strategic interlanguage use, feedback, and comprehension,

besides it includes both listener and speaker as partners in speaking.

1.1.3 The Nature of Spoken Language

The co-construction of meaning and discourse that learners share has been coined with

the spoken language as speakers and listeners attain different functional duties during their

interaction together. According to Harmer (2008), speakers may tend different functions in

15

different speaking events. Transactional and interactional or interpersonal functions are the

main ones speakers perform while speaking. He (ibid) points out, as well, that the purpose of

the speaking event gives a clear idea about the interaction nature of the discourse. In the

spoken discourse where for example, one buys a newspaper at a news kiosk is interactive,

while leaving a message on an answering machine is non-interactive. Speaking can be

planned like lecture and unplanned such as conversation with someone you have not planned

to meet him/her (Harmer, ibid).

1.1.3.1 Transactional Vs. Interactional Talk

Brown and Yule (1983) make a distinction between two spoken language functions;

transactional and interactional functions:

When the focus is on transactional function, the primary goal is then to get the meaning

transference business done. It is ‘message’ oriented rather than ‘listener’ oriented (Nunan,

1989, p. 27). Particularly, the transference of message should be as clear as possible since the

speaker assumes that less knowledge is shared with the listener. The goal of the speaker is to

make the listener understands what has been said through the use of specific vocabulary

(Brown and Yule, ibid, p. 13). Listeners generally confirm that the message has been

understood through the use of formulaic expressions (backchannels) such as really, yeah, I

see, etc. (Buck, 2001, p. 13). Furthermore, Larsen-Freeman (2000) asserts that if the speaker

receives no feedback from the listener to assess whether his moves have been understood or

not, then the exchange is not really communicative. (p. 129)

When the interactional or as Brown (2001) called it interpersonal language function is at

work, the speaker aims at maintaining the social relationships assuming the shared knowledge

between speaker and listener. Consequently, transactional talk aims at getting the business of

message-transmission done while interactional talk maintains the norm of sociality and

16

exhibits an open door for different possible ways to get the message through (McCarthy,

1998, p.28).

1.1.4 Speaking in Real Time

Richards (2008) describes spoken language as “unplanned and often reflects the

processes of construction such as ….reduced forms, fillers, and repeats” (p. 3). This fact is

due the instantaneous nature of speech as “speech takes place in real time” (Buck, 2001, p. 6).

Respectively, the real time nature of the spoken discourse means that speakers have to plan, to

organize the message, and to control the language being used in a rapid rate under the

pressure of time (Bygate, 1987, Buck, ibid). Consequently, an important consideration needs

to be given to the features of real time speech. According to Buck (ibid) short idea units (short

phrases or clauses) and colloquial grammar such as contracted forms, characterise speech.

Accordingly, Thornbury and Slade (2006) claim that the lexical size, speakers and listeners

need to operate successfully in a spoken context, is considerably fewer than it is for writers

and readers (p. 42). Conventionally, conversation as spontaneous speech carries lower

information load (O’Malley and Valdez Pierce, 1996, p. 58). Thornbury and Slade (ibid)

further argue that the lexical density (i.e. the measure of the ratio of the text’s content words

to its function words) and lexical variety in conversation are fewer than in other forms of

speech. Thornbury and Slade (ibid) justified this measurement by asserting “the fewer the

content words, in proportion to function words and inserts, the lower the lexical density” (p.

44). In another vein, lexical frequency was a matter of research too. It is assumed that “nearly

half of all conversation consists of just 50 words, endlessly recycled” (Thornbury and Slade,

2006, p. 45). Moreover, another feature of lexical frequency tends to cover the higher

incidence of adverbial phrases than of nouns and the approximate use ration between verbs

and nouns in contrast to written text where nouns outnumber verbs.

17

Buck (2001), in turn, affords some features of real time spoken language: hesitation

which includes pauses and repetition which according to Thornbury and Slade (2006) serves a

textual and interpersonal function in the sense that it maintains the text’s coherence and

cohesion and hence helps listeners to form accurate schema for the meaning. Fillers also are

used to solve the problem of hesitation. According to Thornbury and Slade (ibid), these fillers

have direct impact on turn taking. For example, pause fillers like er and erm or uh and um

signal that the speaking turn has not yet finished, whereas verbal fillers like well I mean, well

erm you know help speakers gain time at the beginning of the speaking turn. Moreover,

spoken language has also repairs such as false starts, correction in grammar or vocabulary,

and afterthought (Buck, ibid, pp. 10-11).

The spoken language has its own structure and it is characterised with the use of simple

connectives (Buck, ibid, p.10), in addition to reciprocal openings and closings which vary in

formal and casual conversations (Thornbury and Slade, ibid, p. 130). Thornbury and Slade

(ibid) argue that cohesion is purely achieved through grammatical and lexical cohesive

devices. Grammatical devices include the use of references, substitution, ellipsis, and

conjunctions. On the other hand, lexical devices (like repetition, synonyms, and lexical chains

of topically related items) are also used in conversation to maintain the connectedness of

discourse and signal the consistency of the topic of the conversation (pp. 108-122).

Some researchers understand the difficulty of producing spoken text in real time

pressure and provide mechanisms to help speakers become more fluent and cope with real

time demands. The production skills; facilitation such as simplifying structures, ellipsis,

formulaic expressions, and using fillers and hesitation devices, and compensation such as

substitution, rephrasing, reformulating, self-correction, false starts, repetition and hesitation

are useful strategies speakers may resort to when speaking (Bygate, 1987, p.21).

18

Along these lines, what has been referred to as communicative competence seems to

underpin the structure of real speech as all the competences mentioned by Canale (1983) are

there. Linguistic competence is realised in terms of the main grammar, pronunciation, and

lexis features used in conversation, sociolinguistic competence is largely influenced by time

factor, discourse competence reveals in the set of connectedness used by speakers to maintain

the coherent ideas, and the strategic competence which is mandatory to control spoken

language under the pressure of time.

1.1.5 Teaching Speaking: From Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) Perspective

Teaching speaking was neglected in the traditional teaching methods as written form of

language overwhelmed the language instruction. For most of the 20th century, speech was

taught only on the basis of grammar, syntax, vocabulary and pronunciation in grammar-

translation method, audio-lingual approach and the direct method, either through translating

sentences from the L1 to the L2 or through repetition. Speaking then was almost taught for the

sake of “choosing the right form; putting them in the correct order; sounding like a native

speaker; even producing the right meanings” (Bygate, 1987, p. 5). Bygate (ibid) believes

speaking had an underestimated value as humans can all speak. By the last three decades of

the 20th century, communicative approach consistently brought new thinking of the centrality

of speech within language pedagogy and speech has been largely seen similar to writing. As a

matter of fact, the emergence of CLT has brought different changes to the domain of language

teaching, one of which was the inclusion of oral communication in the teaching instruction.

After 1970’s, speaking was never taken for granted and training to speak and solve complex

issues of the underlying competences of speaking to ensure better negotiation of meaning

became prerequisite.

The question about whether teaching pre-determined language with a pure linguistic

focus in teaching oral skills would help learners to survive in real life language use was

19

raised. CLT takes the position that linguistic manifestation is jointly achieved by the

appropriate functional use investment. As Bygate (1987) says that in order to achieve a

communicative goal through speaking, there are two aspects to be considered: knowledge of

the language, and skill in using this knowledge. It is not enough to master the knowledge, but

a speaker of the language should be able to use this knowledge in different situations (p. 3).

Nevertheless, the use of this knowledge will not be possible if learners are unable to acquire

this knowledge, because according to Ellis (1997), the acquisition of grammar on the basis

effective communication is not sure. Thus, the doubt lies on questioning the learners’ focus on

form while their primary concern is meaning conveyance; accordingly, Ellis (ibid) proposes

two possible ways; one involving production and the other comprehension.

Noteworthy, CLT is influenced by cognitive and sociolinguistics theories, started to

take account of meaning and the social context. Consequently, studies attempted to justify the

relationship between formal features and categories of social behaviour to convey the

appropriate language functions. For pedagogical implication, Littlewood (1981) points out

“learners must pay greater attention to the social as well as the functional meanings that

language conveys” (p. 43). The Functionalism view of language gave an insight of how

language items function in different ways within different moves of any speech event (Larsen-

Freeman, 2000).

It has been believed that spoken language is likely to be delivered through the

transactional means and the dissemination of information will be through producing long

transactional turns since it is easily planned (Richards, 2008). However, current trend of

spoken language teaching puts much concentration on teaching short interactional turns

through using language meaningfully and appropriately in different situations. Brown and

Yule (1983) go on to state that:

20

It is currently fashionable in language teaching to pay particular attention to the forms

and functions of short turns…It must surely be clear that students who are only capable

of producing short turns are going to experience a lot of frustration when they try to

speak the foreign language. (pp. 19-20)

This problem according to Brown and Yule (ibid) can be remedied through developing

students’ ability to use language communicatively in context.

Task-based approach has become an important element in classroom teaching (Brown,

2001). Accordingly, this approach should underpin speaking classrooms as tasks in L2 oral

instruction provide learners with the rehearsal and opportunity to keep up with the cognitive

demands of fluency, accuracy, and linguistic complexity (Hinkel, 2006). Willis and Willis

(2007) also argue that tasks are the effective way for language teaching, which require

learners to use the language themselves, accordingly they further point out that task-based

approach should be refined to fit learners’ needs. The nature of spoken discourse has a great

impact on the way speaking skill is taught. Richards (2008) discusses an expanded version of

Brown and Yule (ibid) framework of the nature of speech to include: talk as interaction, talk

as transaction and talk as performance.

Talk as interaction has the interactional aim that Brown and Yule (ibid) mentioned. It

focuses at the first place on developing speakers social relationships. Richards (ibid) puts

“Talk as interaction refers to what we normally mean by “conversation” and describes

interaction that serves a primarily social function” (p.22). Thornbury and Slade (2006) point

out “conversation is co-constructed by two or more participants, unfolding dynamically in real

time” (p. 114). This definition highlights the concept that conversation is highly cooperative

interaction.

Thornbury and Slade (2006) and Richards (2008) provide some skills that learners need

to be acquainted with while using talk as interaction, thus, conversation. In order to use talk as

21

interaction, leaners need to know the adjacency pairs that describe the moves that speaker and

listener exchange (e.g., question/answer, complaint/denial, offer/accept). Turn taking

mechanisms were a matter of analysis in describing the interactive nature of conversation.

Thornbury and Slade (2006) assert that turn taking differs according to the degree of formality

of the text. In formal spoken text, the turn taking is more ordered and controlled, while in

casual conversation, overlapping, interruptions and back-channelling are very common (p.

123-125). Nevertheless, learners engage in both forms of conversation and the predictability

of some speaking features can cause frustration. Thus, teaching speaking in both contexts,

formal and casual, seems the right approach as the more the learner can control unexpected

features of speech the greater his confidence, fluency, and language adaptation will be.

Teaching talk as interaction seems to have great importance in developing learners’ language

studies, since according to Richards (2008) learners may encounter situations where

interaction is compulsory.

Talk as transaction, in the other hand, is not concerned with how speakers interact

socially together. However, it “refers to situations where the focus is on what is said or done”

(Richards, ibid, p. 24). It is important to deliver understandable message for listeners. The

main skills, Richards talks about to master talk as transaction, are centrally developed around

language function such as explaining a need or intention, asking for clarification, justifying

opinion, agreeing and disagreeing, etc. The functionalism view of language seems the way to

master speech as transaction, that is, the message can be well-transmitted when learners use

language function adequately.

As the name denotes, the focus of talk as performance is on how learners perform the

language. Richards (ibid) defines it as “public talk, that is, talk that transmits information

before an audience, such as classroom presentations, public announcements, and speeches” (p.

27). The difference between talk as performance and prior ones is the one way nature as

22

Richards (2008) asserts that performance generally takes the form of monologue rather than

dialogue. The main skills involved in leaning talk as performance are adhering to the

appropriate sequence of information presentation, maintaining audience engagement, using an

appropriate opening and closing, and using correct language (p.28).

1.1.5.1 Teaching Speaking Underlying Competences

As speaking is defined as communication, its underlying competences have direct

relation with the internal structure of communicative competence. The underlying

competences of communicative competence incorporate in the communicative instruction in

order to enable the learner to use the language appropriately in the target contexts. According

to Richards (2006) communicative competence includes the following pedagogical aspects of

language knowledge:

• Knowing how to use language for a range of different purposes and functions.

• Knowing how to vary our use of language according to the setting and the participants

(e.g., knowing when to use formal and informal speech or when to use language appropriately

for written as opposed to spoken communication).

• Knowing how to produce and understand different types of texts (e.g., narratives,

reports, interviews, conversations).

• Knowing how to maintain communication despite having limitations in one’s language

knowledge (e.g., through using different kinds of communication strategies). (p. 3)

One of the provocative issues in teaching speaking is accuracy and fluency. Richards

(2008) attests that “Fluency became a goal for speaking courses and this could be developed

through the use of information-gap and other tasks that required learners to attempt real

communication”(p. 2). However, teaching speaking to attain fluency cannot overwhelm

accuracy as they both characterise speech and the absence of one means the deficiency of

speech. In language teaching, it is mandatory to emphasise both on fluency and accuracy, but

23

it is only a matter of the amount of time devoted to teach each of them according to learners’

purpose of language use (Baker & Westrup, 2003; Hinkel, 2006).

1.2 The Construct of Listening

It is conventional that people gain a large portion of their knowledge, their

understanding and acknowledgement of the world through listening. On the basis of this idea,

listening is never perceived as an easy process, but rather as complex processes where human

brain infers and interprets meaning from spoken language. According to Brown and Yule

(1983) listening comprehension is the “process of arriving at a reasonable interpretation” (p.

57) of what speakers have said. One may ask how the listener listens in order to comprehend.

The cognitive demanding process of listening should be explained. On the one hand,

Vandergrift (1999) answers that question by stating that listening comprehension is an active

process in which learners must distinguish the differences between sounds, vocabulary,

grammar, intonation, stress and context in order to interpret and respond to messages

immediately, while on the other hand, Richards (1983) claims that listening comprehension

relies heavily on propositions that form the basic units of literal meaning. The listener’s goal

is then to determine the propositions of the utterance he/she hears. However; “a proposition

does not mark the end of the listening process” (Field, 2008, p 130) as listeners misunderstand

these propositions in many occasions, thus, Field further contends that the situation in which

the spoken text has occurred is necessary to cover the whole meaning. During listening,

hearers are recommended to retrieve linguistic knowledge, schematic knowledge including

background knowledge, prior experiences and procedural knowledge (how knowledge is used

in discourse) and finally contextual knowledge (situation and co-text knowledge) in order to

reconstruct the intended meaning appropriately (Littlewood, 1981, Lynch, 2009, Anderson

and Lynch, 1988, as cited in Skehan, 1998, p. 14). The linguistic competence allows learners

to chunk the utterances into syntactic segments. Besides, the background knowledge, known

24

as real world or non-linguistic knowledge, helps listeners to interpret correctly what they hear

by means of ‘formal schemata’ that reflects the listeners’ knowledge of different text types

and genres and ‘content schemata’ that consists of knowledge of the relevant subject matter

(Lynch, 2009, p.48).

The process of interpretation that has been considered synonym to listening (Brown and

Yule, 1983) involves a set of different simultaneous cognitive mechanisms in order to

interpret correctly spoken messages. As a hearer first hears speech, an image holding all

phonetic, syntactic and discourse elements of the message being heard is stored in short term

memory. The hearer then identifies the type of speech (e.g., conversation, radio broadcast)

and the objective of the speaker by considering the speech event and context (e.g., to

persuade, to deny or to affirm …etc.). Afterwards, he recalls background knowledge and

lifetime experiences to interpret the message. Subsequently, assigns a literal meaning to the

utterance being processed, however, in many cases the literal meaning do not match the

intended meaning, so the hearer goes beyound the surface of the utterance. In this case the

hearer assigns an intended meaning to the utterance. Last but not least, the hearer determines

whether information should be retained in short-term memory or long-term one. Eventually,

he deletes the form of the utterance and keeps only meaning (Brown, 2001, pp. 249-50). From

these neurological processes, it can be deduced that listeners make use of their internal

competences like the knowledge of structural system, discourse patterns, possible

phonological constructions, shared knowledge, context and prior experiences to understand.

In other words, communicative competence helps listeners in the process of comprehension

all along the line. The hearers too need to be pragmatic in their interpretation as Brown (ibid)

points out “a key to human communication is the ability to match perceived meaning with

intended meaning” (p.50). The foregoing processes are presented into two directions of

listening processing as Richards (2008) calls them: Bottom-up and Top-down processes.

25

Bottom-up processing depends on “the incoming input as the basis for understanding

the message” (Richards, 2008, p. 4). Brown (2001) counts listeners performing the intensive

role while listening as developing bottom-up understanding of spoken language. Listeners

using bottom-up comprehension process analyse the stretch of the text being heard according

to hierarchal organisation in order to decode language; sounds, words, clauses, sentences and

texts into meaningful data (Richards, ibid, p.4). The decoding process consists of the

knowledge of how sounds and words are strung together and how the code can change in

different ways when it is strung together.

The top-down processing refers to how listeners use their background knowledge to

attribute meaning to language input; how our knowledge of social and cultural conventions

help us understand meaning. Brown (ibid) considers arriving at a comprehension purpose as

extensive role that listener may perform when listening to lengthy conversations and

consequently using top-down processing. Field (2008) argues that top-down process refers to

the use of context and co-text to identify unclear words. Context or co-text in this case stands

for the previous knowledge about the topic of discourse, situational or contextual knowledge,

or knowledge in the form of “schemata” or “scripts” about the overall structure of events and

the relationships between them (Richards, ibid, p. 7).

1.2.1 Definition of Interactive Listening

Interactive listening is now an established part in L2 listening methodology (e.g.,

Anderson & Lynch, 1988). When discussing listening in interactive situations, the terms

which have been used are interactive listening (Vandergrift, 1997), interactional listening

(Vandergrift, 2002), bidirectional listening (Vandergrift, 2004, 2007), reciprocal listening

(Anderson & Lynch, 1988), and collaborative listening (Buck, 2001). Interactive listening is

easily confused with the interactive function of language; however, Vandergrift (1997, 2002)

provides a distinctive definition of interactional listening as neither including “maintaining

26

social relationships” purpose, nor “recognizing personal components of message” purpose. As

interactive listening appeared in opposition to transactional listening when listeners listen to

oral texts in order to obtain information and complete a comprehension task, without

interaction, it is noteworthy, that the word interaction is not used to express and maintain the

personal relationship between participants, but it refers to the listener’s active role in

cooperation with speaker to fulfil the goal(s) of the interaction (Vandergrift, 1997). Thus, the

accurate definition is:

Interactive listening takes place in a communicative situation, in which the listener,

taking an active role (as a participant or an addressee), listens and gives responses such

as signaling comprehension, requesting clarifications, negotiating meanings, etc. In so

doing, the listener, in collaboration with the speaker, solves communication problems,

shapes the discourse, and accomplishes certain goals of interaction. (Xiaoxian & Yan,

2010, p.22)

Considering that interactive listening is based on the idea that listening is part of real-life

communication, the interaction of listening with real communication is worth analysing.

Undeniably, listening comprehension is one of the complex processes that learners face

during learning. Lynch (2009) argues that “internal distractions (such as emotional upset or

toothache), lack of interest, emotional reaction to speaker or topic, over-reaction to the

language the speaker uses, jumping to conclusions, and preparing a response to what the

speaker has said” (pp. 3-4) cause difficulties for listeners when trying to understand. He (ibid)

further adds that there are also some spoken language-related challenges that prevent listeners

from understanding, like: the expressions the speaker chooses, the speed of the spoken

language, unfamiliar content and cultural references, and lack of speech clarity. It has been

established as a vital means of interactive listening efficiency as it requires listeners to display

signs of partnership. Hence, listeners play the role of speaker and listener interchangeably in

27

the interaction. Xiaoxian and Yan (2010) put “the listener receives messages from the

speaker, comprehends/interprets/evaluates, and gives a certain response”, and “the speaker

receives the listener response, comprehends/interprets/evaluates, and gives a feedback

response to the listener” (pp. 22-3).

Vandergrift (1997) also argues that interactive listening requires listeners to interact

with an interlocutor, requesting clarification or providing feedback in order to ensure

successful communication. In essence, “a listener may use reception strategies such as

clarification requests …and receipt tokens (comprehension signals to move a conversation

forward) in interaction with an interlocutor” (Vandergrift, 2007, p.195). Xiaoxian and Yan

(ibid) report that there are attributes that cover the interactive listening strategy use on the

basis of definitions they have drawn from 20 studies conducted to conceptualise the construct

of interactive listening. These attributes are the reception strategies Rost and Ross (1991) and

Vandergrift (1997, 2007) addressed in their studies. Rost and Ross (1991) conducted a study

on 72 Japanese college EFL students and identified eight types of strategies under three

headings: global questioning strategies (global reprise, continuation signal), local questioning

strategies (lexical reprise, fragment reprise, lexical gap, and positional reprise), and inferential

strategies (hypothesis testing, forward inference). These strategies are grouped along with the

likely speaker response(s) in Figure 1.

Strategy Stage Definition Speaker Response

Global Reprise I Listener asks for

repetition, simplification,

or simply states that

nothing was understood.

Repeat or rephrase

entire utterance or

segment.

Continuation

Reprise

I Listener requests no

elaboration or repetition

and indicates current

status of understanding

with overt statement or

nonverbal gesture.

Continue

Lexical Reprise II Listener asks a question

about a specific word;

may include repetition of

Repeat or rephrase

entire utterance or

segment.

28

word with questioning

intonation.

Fragment Reprise II Listener asks a question

about a specific part of

the previous discourse;

may include repetition.

Repeat or rephrase

specific part of

utterance.

Lexical Gap II Listener asks about a

specific word or term,

often requesting a repeat

for the word.

Same response as

above

Positional Reprise II Listener refers to a

position in the previous

utterance that was not

understood.

Same response as

above

Hypothesis Testing III Listener asks specific

questions to verify what

was hear and indicates a

propositional

understanding (or

misunderstanding) of the

utterance.

Confirm if the

hypothesis check is

true or plausible.

Provide other

information if the

listener’s hypothesis

is false.

Forward Inference III The listener overtly

indicates current

understanding by asking

a question using

established information

given by the interlocutor.

Answer question,

confirm assumption if

consistent with

story/conversation,

modify assumption or

add information to

clarify

misunderstanding.

Table 1: Typology of Listener Feedback Moves and Likely Speaker Response(s)

Adapted from Rost& Ross (1991), pp. 245-250 (as cited in Vandergrift, 1997, p.497)

Vandergrift (1997) puts that these strategies are of different functions; they “call the

interlocutor back”, include all the reprise strategies, and “move the discourse forward”,

include continuation signals, forward inferencing, and hypothesis testing. Hypothesis testing

may also “allow the listener to indicate current understanding of the utterance/discourse and

the interlocutor to affirm or clarify comprehension” (pp.496-497).

1.2.2 Teaching Listening Comprehension: From Communicative Language Teaching

(CLT) Perspective

Listening instruction has evolved through time. It was first taught in the form of

listening to repeat in the audio-lingual approach with mere focus on developing pronunciation

29

and then, through the question-answer comprehension approach. During the 1970’s, listening

pedagogy largely emphasized the development of learners’ abilities to identify individual

sounds, and sound combinations, contractions, words, sentence boundaries, that is, bottom-up

linguistic processing. The 1980’s witnessed a shift from the view of L2 listening as

predominantly linguistic to extensive listening view, and listening pedagogy moved away

from its focus on the linguistic aspects of comprehension to the activation of learners’ top-

down knowledge (Hinkel, 2006, p.117). Recently, real-life listening approach is adapted,

involving communicative tasks and real interactions with native speakers (Vandergrift, 2004).

Through this evolution, listening moves from mere understanding of aural texts to negotiating

and interpreting meaning with speakers and from the least explicit of the four skills to the

most important skill. Moreover, it was perceived in equal measure with speaking (Field, 2008,

p. 5). Listening instruction became the first concern of many researchers (Richards, 1983,

2008; Vandergrift, 2004, 2007; Lynch, 2009).

Listening comprehension is the heart of foreign language learning. Learners are always

eager to understand and be understood while engaging in conversations or listening to a

variety of aural and visual foreign language texts like online audios, e.g., podcasts and videos,

e. g., YouTube. According to Vandergrift (2007) “L2 learners are rarely taught how to listen

effectively” (p. 191). Some researchers favour one process of listening over the other, for

example O’Malley and Valdez Pierce (1996) argue that “effective listeners used prior

knowledge or elaboration, inferencing, and self-monitoring, while ineffective listeners

focused on the individual words” (p.59);furthermore, “bottom-up processing alone often

provides an insufficient basis for comprehension” (Richards, 2008, p. 9), however, some

scholars believe that listeners need to learn how to use both processes to their advantage

depending on their purpose for listening (Nunan, 1989; Richards, ibid). For example,

Richards (ibid) supports this view by saying:

30

in real world listening, both bottom-up and top-down processes generally occur

together, the extent to which one or the other dominates depending on the listener’s

familiarity with the topic and the content of a text, the density of information in a text,

the text type, and the listener’s purpose in listening. (p. 9)

1.2.3 Challenges for Teaching Listening

Because of the shift that listening instruction has made when it changed the emphasis

from the listening product, that is to say, listening to learn to the listening process, i.e.,

learning to listen, listening became more difficult. Teaching leaners how to listen is then a

challenging process where listeners face many challenges, among which listening strategies

and real speech cause the most difficulties.

1.2.3.1 Listening Strategies

L2 listening experts advocate the teaching of metacognitive and cognitive strategies

especially for L2 listening comprehension (Hinkel, 2006) and others like Lynch (2009) and

Field (2008) add social-affective strategies which involve other people in the effort to

understand. The key metacognitive strategies widely adopted in L2 listening instruction

include planning for listening, self-monitoring the comprehension processes, evaluating

comprehension, and identifying comprehension difficulties, besides the cognitive strategies

that listeners use to make sense of what they hear (Hinkel, 2006, Lynch, 2009). Metacognitive

strategies raise the listeners’ self-awareness that leads for better understanding of the listening

process; consequently listening becomes easier as the listener plans, monitors and identifies

the comprehension problem.

Vandergrift (2004) argues that a consistent use of metacognitive strategies is more

effective in improving learners’ L2 listening comprehension than working on the listening

skill alone. However, despite the fact that learning strategies – cognitive, metacognitive, and

31

social affective – are useful in listening, the aim of a listening lesson is not “to add to

linguistic knowledge” according to Field (2008, p. 294), consequently, as Field says,

communication strategies rather than learning strategies should be emphasized while teaching

listening because the latter deals much more with solving “immediate and often unexpected

problems of understanding” (p.294). Additionally, he groups communication strategies under

broader strategies: avoidance strategies, achievement strategies, and repair strategies.

Noteworthy, the repair strategies, according to Field (2008) are the ones that are used when

“teaching listening interacts with the teaching of speaking” (p. 301). The repair strategies are

known in Rost and Ross (1991) as reception strategies (as mentioned in Vandergrift, 1997).

(See Sub-section 1.2.1 Definition of Interactive Listening, Table 1)

Furthermore, Vandergrift (ibid) points out that EFL/ESL teachers should discuss

listening strategies in class to help students recognize and use them to understand spoken

language. There is now enough evidence for the efficacy of strategy-based approach in

explicit listening teaching. Undoubtedly, meta-strategic awareness is indispensable. The

challenge then occurs when a decision about how explicit awareness raising has to be. Field

(ibid) points out that the challenge for the instructor is not to only teach listeners particular

strategies in controlled conditions but also to integrate them into their listening behavior in

real communication. As Crabbe (2007) answers the question of how to foster learning

awareness, “one obvious answer to this is to make sure that a continuous and systematic

dialogue about learning takes place in the classroom among learners and between learners

and teachers” (p. 118). Hence, this method is applicable to raise learners’ awareness to

listening strategies. The best way to achieve that according to Field (ibid) is through authentic

recordings that demand realistic strategic response (p.309). However, Vandergrift (1999) sees

that the exposure to oral text in a language rather than English to sensitize students, especially

those who do not transfer their native language listening strategies in another language, and

32

discuss the possible cues will help them to understand the meaning of the text (pp.171-172).

Field (1998) points out that listener suffers from the lack of ‘bottom-up’ information, and

accordingly, he stresses forcefully the use of compensation strategies, namely inferencing, to

be used, in other words listeners need to use the knowledge of the context to make guesses

about the accurate meaning. The possible cues that help listeners understand the meaning of

the text, as proposed by Vandergrift (1999), are seen as compensatory strategies by Field

(1998). Field proposes predicting what will be heard on the basis of the knowledge of the

topic; understanding the general information in the text by recognizing the key words; using

sentence stress to determine any ‘new’ information; identifying any change of the topic by

adhering to markers; and whether ignoring the “unknown words” or relying on the general

understanding. (p. 117)

Presently, the new trend in listening instruction has shown a growing reliance on

strategy-based approach (Lynch, 2009, Hinkel, 2006) in order to develop the strategic

competence (Canale & Swain, 1980). Thus, awareness and use of appropriate listening

strategies help language learners to negotiate meaning more efficiently and effectively

(Vandergrift, 1997; Lynch, ibid; Field, 2008). According to Lynch (1996) and Vandergrift

(ibid) interactive listening should develop learners’ ability for active negotiation of meaning

through the effective use of reception strategies in interaction which can both resolve

immediate comprehension problems and facilitate long-term language learning. Lynch (ibid)

further affirms that “the effective use of interactive negotiation is the one of the things that

differentiates successful listeners from less successful ones” (p. 98).

Vandergrift (1997) asserts that interlocutors use two kinds of communication strategies:

production strategies to resolve a communication problem caused by a lack of linguistic

knowledge or to further communication through clarifications, repetitions, or modifications;

and reception strategies to clarify meaning or signal comprehension by comprehensible output

33

to the interlocutor (p. 496). Precisely speaking, Brown (2000) speaks about compensation

strategies that learners use to compensate missing knowledge, such as memorizing

“prefabricated patterns”, “code switching”, and “direct appeal” (when learner asks for help

from native speaker or teacher) (pp. 128-30). These strategies can help learners to avoid some

comprehension difficulties as the prefabricated patterns and code switching raise the

familiarity of the language and reduce the anxiety towards the listening process.

1.2.3.2 Real Speech

Ur (1984) provides some real-life listening characteristics that may contribute to

comprehension, such as the visibility of the speaker which clashes sometimes with the listener

response, environmental clues, e.g., facial expressions, posture eye direction, proximity,

gesture, and tone of voice. She (ibid) claims that “environmental clues are often more likely to

provide information about the situation, speakers and general atmosphere than about the

actual topic of discourse” (p.5); moreover, shortness of the chunks into which heard discourse

usually divided, where the usual pattern in short listening followed by a response, informal

speech that is usually spontaneous and colloquial characterize real-life listening situations.

According to Ur (ibid) “classroom practice should usually incorporate such characteristics of

real-life listening” (p. 10).

However, listening in the language classroom is not a depiction of real life listening

which is characterised according to Ur (1996) by informal spoken discourse, the listener’s

pre-expectation of the topic and the purpose of the listening, the existence of visual stimuli

besides the audio, the ongoing purposeful listener response that overlaps speaking, and the

mutual influence speaker and listener have on manipulating the discourse usually on the basis

of listeners reactions. It is noteworthy that the classroom provides mostly one –way listening

and very limited formal spoken discourse in two-way listening. Ur (ibid), consequently,

suggests classroom activities that include some of the features of real-life situations to best

34

prepare listener for effective listening outside the classroom. Vandergrift (2004) has argued

that interactive listening is the technique that listeners engage in most frequently, and some

researchers would argue that this is the only dimension of listening worth teaching

(Vandergrift, 1997; Hinkle, 2006; Xiaoxian & Yan, 2010).

1.3 Integrative Teaching Format of Speaking and Listening

An integrated instruction is used in teaching listening and speaking since “integrated

FL/L2 instruction can increase learners’ opportunities for L2 purposeful communication,

interaction, real-life language use, and diverse types of contextualized discourse and linguistic

features, all of which have the goal of developing students’ language proficiency and skills”

(Hinkel, 2006, p. 114). Besides, the increased tendency towards the inclusion of the true real-

life nature of communication in language pedagogy, has led current language teaching

practices to focus on accustoming learners with real-life activities where authentic language is

used. Once having understood the tenets of interactive nature of both speaking and listening in

real life context, the question remained is how to implement them in the classroom. Although

classroom speaking and listening teaching is not the same as ordinary social discourse,

teachers attempt to imitate aspects of real world communication, in particular, the listening-

negotiating-speaking paradigm (explained above). For example, in L2 listening pedagogy,

two complementary approaches reflect current perspectives on more effective learning; one

emphasizes the integrated teaching of listening for communication and in conjunction with

other L2 skills, such as speaking, sociopragmatics, grammar, and vocabulary, favouring

bottom-up processing, the other moves to foreground the learner’s use of metacognitive and

cognitive strategies to bolster the learning process, favouring top-down processing

(Vandergrift, 2004).

Jingyan and Baldauf Jr (2011) propose a teaching format that encompasses the

interaction of speaking and listening in classroom lessons. Worth to note interactive listening

35

is what is taught with speaking in the classroom to fulfil the purpose of communication. They

provide three steps which should be systematically related in classroom teaching. They

particularly emphasised the pre listening phase, which should precede the former steps, to set

the context, to provide motivation and to teach important new vocabulary.

Step 1: Cooperative Listening (Listening)

In this step, listeners are required to listen for the gist, negotiating and compare their

understanding with each other, after the first play of the listening material. In the second play

of the listening material, listeners listen for details, interpret them and then negotiate their

interpretation through paraphrasing, asking or answering questions, add contextual

clarification, verification or repetition. In the third play of the listening material, if learners are

still unsure about what they have heard, they clarify and verify their interpretations. The

teacher can only interfere in this stage to clarify whatever listeners failed to understand.

Step 2: Communicative Production (Post-listening 1)

During the communicative production stage, the learners’ comprehensible input, which

they reach in step 1, is communicated during different types of activities such as group

decisions recorded in the form of statements, choices among alternatives, problem solving,

debate, role play, interview, etc. Once learners choose activity, they work in pairs to generate

ideas and opinions. As it is noticed in this step communicative production takes the form of

collaborative work and thus interactive speaking is set to work besides interactive listening.

Step 3: Oral Presentation (Post-Listening 2)

During the oral presentation stage, learners still work collaboratively, but negotiate

shared work for the purpose of presentation. Learners have the opportunity to do this

presentation in pairs to overcome the anxiety of speaking in public and receive feedback. (pp.

33-34)

36

Negotiation and cooperation are the focal axis of these steps. Negotiation is the line of

connection between speaking and listening that is connected through cooperation. In essence,

negotiation plays a key role in improving listening comprehension, and in developing second

language acquisition (SLA).

Strategic competence is significant in speaking and listening teaching as it shapes the

discourse. Strategic teaching is then an integrated part of the speaking/listening instruction;

among these strategies Brown (2000) calls avoidance strategies that learners use to avoid what

they cannot express because of their language deficiency. The avoidance can happen on three

levels; syntactic, phonological and topic. For example in topic avoidance, the learner may

change the topic or pretend not to understand. In listening, listener can use all the strategies

mentioned in figure 1 to ensure meaningful communication. The way in which listening

strategies should be taught to help learners recognise is the enquiry which seems to be called

for. Relatedly, Field (1998) says that it is recommended to teach these strategies explicitly;

however, recognition is not sufficient to account for their application in the real-like tasks.

Consequently, he makes his own recommendation by implementing tasks that “reflect more

closely what happens in a real-life listening encounter” (p. 116).

1.3.1 Activating Students’ Learning while Speaking and Listening

In traditional learning in higher education learners are considered as passive holders of

knowledge, it was shown in “sitting in class inattentively, dividing one's concentration

between episodes of daydreaming and periods of attentiveness to the lecture, and listening and

occasionally taking literal notes” (Bonwell & Eison, 1991, p.1). Hence, learners were passive

listeners who never contribute orally in the classroom; however, research has proved the value

of immersing students in active rather than passive learning. Ur (1984) puts that passive

listening implies the act of simple listening with the aim of comprehension, whereas active

listening involves production, in other words, she means that it is not enough for listeners to

37

hear what the counterparts said, but it is necessary to understand and think about how to

respond to what has been said and develop mutual communication with the speaker. In

essence, active learning came about to replace passive learning and to basically “involve

students in doing things and thinking about the things they are doing” (Bonwell & Eison,

1991, p.2). The general characteristics of active learning according to the same authors are:

- Students are involved in more than listening.

- Less emphasis is placed on transmitting information and more on developing students'

skills.

- Students are involved in higher-order thinking (analysis, synthesis, evaluation).

- Students are engaged in activities (e.g., reading, discussing, and writing).

- Greater emphasis is placed on students' exploration of their own attitudes and values.

In the same vein, Bonwell and Eison (ibid) mention the interactive techniques or strategies

that promote active learning from which they accentuate the techniques that bolster active

speaking and listening learning. (1) Discussion is the most recalled strategy to promote active

learning, accordingly, both authors stress the idea of simplifying the task to help students

understand it and be able to solve the problem successfully, that is help students to easily

engage in “defining a problem; diagnosing possible reasons for the problem; searching for

alternative solutions; and evaluating the alternatives and choosing the most appropriate

solution” (p.38). (2) Audio-visual instruction such as film, multimedia presentations,

television, and videos contribute also to the development of active learning. (3) Cooperative

learning which, according to Bonwell and Eison (ibid) serves to develop students' learning,

social skills like decision making, conflict management, and communication (p.43). (4)

Debates which stimulate students’ motivation, oral communication, participation, and logical

thinking. (5) Drama has proved its value in increasing students learning potentials and avidity

toward the content. (6) Role playing, simulation and games are useful for content being

38

considered in the lecture, result in high levels of motivation and enthusiasm, and promote

cooperative learning due to their approaching to the real- life experiences, besides these

techniques proved to be valuable to teaching learning styles.

1.3.2 Speaking and Listening Activities

Accounting for the interactive nature of speaking and listening, the different types of

activities that Jingyan and Baldauf Jr (2011) said they can be used in step 2 in their teaching

format need to be recalled in the classroom. These activities should insure the transformability

of comprehensible input into comprehensible output in the form of interaction. Speaking

about these activities, one should know the rationality behind them. Bygate (1987) criticizes

whatever activity that resembles “learning to drive without ever going out on the road” (p.5)

because language is more than an object of study, but “a vehicle” for classroom

communication that allows learners to go out on the road, Larsen-Freeman (2000) put. This is

the view adopted by CLT which emphasized the social context of the communicative event.

As a result, “it is important for learners to practice the language they are learning in situations

which are similar to life outside the classroom” (Baker and Westrup, 2003, p.7). Harmer

(2007) provides three main types of speaking tasks: rehearsal tasks to practice real-life

speaking, assessment tasks to provide feedback of success and failure, and language

activation tasks to promote fluency.

Consequently, teachers’ role in the classroom is to help their students to make use of

experiences they get from classroom tasks into real situations beyond the classroom (Lynch,

2009; Crabbe, 2007). Crabbe (ibid) tries to encourage “private management” where “it is

necessary to engage the learners in understanding, identifying and taking up the learning

opportunities” (p. 124). To ensure the feasibility of classroom activities a lot of attention has

been paid to the design of activities to cope with the characteristics of real spoken texts.

Larsen-Freeman (2000) and Thornbury and Slade (2006) provide some communicative

39

activities that adhere to the features of real life interactions; role plays, problem-solving

activities, and games where the learner uses minimal range of lexis, use different set of

connectives to produce consistent ideas, choose what to say and how to say it, use the

language purposefully and appropriately to the context, prepare himself for real situations,

negotiate meaning through cooperative learning, and receive immediate feedback from the

listener on whether or not he/she successfully communicated.

Moreover, developing speaking activities depends a lot on the spoken function that is

emphasised in the classroom. As mentioned earlier, talk has three major functions and

activities are assigned accordingly. On the one hand, if interaction is the aim, starting and

closing conversations, making small talk, narrating personal incidents and experiences,

reacting to what others say, giving feedback, and signalling understanding through back

channelling and turn taking are emphasised. Additionally, the provision of naturalistic

dialogues that simulate the real-life features of spoken language, such as minimizing the

lexical range which is used in the transcripts of interactive exchanges (Seedhouse, 1999, p.

151), are the aim of interactive activities as pointed out by Richards (2008, p.29). Richards

(ibid) asserts that foreign language learners need opportunities to develop interaction skills.

Bygate (1987) calls for interaction skill to ensure better production and thus reception as it

involves the negotiation skills that manage the interaction and negotiation of meaning so that

understanding is achieved. On the other hand, when transaction is accentuated in the

classroom, using talk for sharing and obtaining information in real time transactions is then

the ultimate goal. Richards (ibid) proposes problem solving and role play activities which

include activities include ranking, values clarification, brainstorming, and simulations to teach

talk as transaction (p.30).

A different strategy is employed in teaching talk as performance. The aim of the

classroom activities is to prepare learners for all the linguistic resources such as speech

40

patterns typically used in speeches and presentations, besides paralinguistic features such as

body language. Richards (2008) suggests the following set of activities to teach this type of

talk; models of speeches, oral presentations, stories, etc. He adds that video or audio

recordings or written examples are useful techniques to illustrate real performance.

In the same vein, listening, which appears in these different functions of spoken

discourse as it always collaborates with speaking, is taught through transactional listening

tasks; listeners are exposed to comprehensive input, generally marked as one-way listening, in

order to help listeners internalise the language rules which help develop other language skills

such as speaking and writing. However, comprehension is insufficient in L2 learning where

learners need to receive oral input and produce a comprehensible output in two-way listening,

as a result, the response to received input helps learners become aware of what they know and

what they do not know (Vandergrift, 1997), thus, interactive listening requires students to be

actively involved in negotiating meaning to find the way to understand each other. Ur (1984)

points out “listening exercises are most effective if they are constructed around a task” (p. 25).

There seems then that convergent tasks, as Lynch (1995) named them, promote more

substantial interaction among interlocutors and provide rich opportunities to use confirmation

checks and clarification requests.

1.3.3 Assessing Speaking

In language learning context, speaking assessment is coined with the classroom as it is

the context where the assessment takes place. One argument says that formative assessment is

the type of assessment that should be realized in the classroom context. This is due the fact

that learners must have freedom to use the language in the classroom whenever they have the

opportunity. According to Brown (2001) this can only be done through grading learners

informally during the process of acquiring their competences and skills. He (2001) adds that

teacher can be successful through constant informal (formative) assessment. However, this

41

fact does not underpin the avoidance of summative assessment which stands for the term

‘test’ and measures the rate of learners’ achievements (product) at the end of a lesson, course,

etc.

Canale and Swain (1980) put that language assessment is based on tasks that involve

communicative competence and require communicative performance, thereby; the assessment

of speaking in the classroom is performance–based (Fulcher & Davidson, 2007). In the same

vein, Brown (2001) describes the performance-based assessment as having interactive nature,

as the learner assessment is based on his relation with the environment and others in the

interaction, Fulcher and Davidson (ibid) put. Further to that, Brown (ibid) contends that when

a teacher is doing little less of summative assessment and little more formative assessment, is

actually doing performance-based assessment.

The importance of learning environment, which is according to Fulcher and Davidson

(2007) defined as “set of learning experiences that are designed to lead to the acquisition of

language and communication” (p. 25), and which reveals in reshaping the learning process

by identifying what the learner needs to be learnt next, is undeniable. Along the way learners

improve their learning, learners apply different ways of assessment in the classroom. Self-

assessment, peer feedback and feedback provision were and are still the most addressed areas

in language assessment. As far as feedback provision is concerned, Ellis (1997) provides two

central options; overt and covert feedback. By overt feedback, he (ibid) means the explicit

correction of learner errors with the aim of drawing the learners’ attention to a specific

grammatical error, whereas, covert feedback, according to Ellis (ibid) is the kind of feedback

that occurs in conversation that is usually given implicitly, for example when the teacher

repeats his student statement with an incidental correction and a raising intonation.

Noteworthy, the most occurring way is peer assessment as it adheres to the well-established

principal of second language acquisition which is cooperative learning (Brown, 2004).

42

Nevertheless, self-assessment falls in the core of the formative assessment, thus, it is another

favored way of assessment in the classroom. Additionally, self-assessment derives from the

theoretical conception that learners should pursue their learning and achieve their own goals

without external assistant, that is to say autonomy that will inevitably increase their intrinsic

motivation (Brown, ibid).

Brown (ibid) provides a set of tasks that more likely to be strategies that can be

developed to assess learners’ speaking through self or peer assessment; filling out students

peer and self-checklist and questionnaire, rating someone’s oral presentation holistically,

detecting pronunciation or grammar errors on a self-recording, asking other for confirmation

checks in conversation settings, and setting goals for creating/increasing opportunities for

speaking (p. 277).

Due to lack of confidence in learners own assessment because of learners’ subjectivity

that effects their ability to detect accurately their errors, the teacher is then recommended to

get involved in feedback provision. Nevertheless, even this process needs carful

considerations and some techniques such as the avoidance of overlapping the learner’s fluent

speaking due to the fact that speaking is real-time process and interrupting it may lead to

destroying it. This is the main issue Harmer (2007) speaks about as constant interruption from

the part of the teacher will destroy the purpose of the speaking activity, especially

conversations, and disturb students. He (ibid) suggests that teachers ask their students first to

give their own feedback and then choose the appropriate way to correct the mistakes; by

discussing them with the whole class, writing them on the board, or give directly to the

students concerned (p.131). As a point of interest, teachers should give a chance to their

students to decide on the way and time they prefer to be corrected. In short, Harmer (ibid)

suggests that never cease assessing students, whether incidentally or intentionally, Brown

(2001) contends.

43

1.3.4 Assessing Interactive Listening

Not much information will be added to what has been discussed in speaking assessment

above, however; some techniques and strategies that are typically used for listening

assessment should be addressed as well. Brown (2004) sees that listening assessment goes

along with the types of listening, for example, when listening is intensive, the recognition of

phonological and morphological elements of language is assessed by their identification

among two or more choices or choosing the correct paraphrase of the correct stimulus, when

listening is responsive, the test-taker’s response of an open-ended questions is counted, and

when listening is selective, as the name denotes, the test-taker performs the listening cloze,

that is to say, he/she finds the exact deleted word, that can be of a grammatical category, in

the written text that is identical to the spoken one or transforming spoken text to a visual

representation of it, however; extensive listening is assessed in the form of dictation where

test-taker writes down what has been heard three time in different rates of speed, or in form of

communicative stimulus-response task where test-taker responds to comprehensive questions.

However, as stated by Buck (2001) “there is no such thing as a communicative test” (p.92).

Brown (2004) puts that interactive listening approaches the standards of the real world context

of the listening performance, authentic communicative listening test is the ideal representation

of language assessment. Thus, all the ways of listening assessment mentioned above are of

weak validity if they are used in isolation from their authentic interactive use.

Interactive listening assessment has seen a rapid growth of research-related efforts. It

has been agreed on the fact that this type of listening is more difficult to test because the

listener must process the input in real time, clarify understanding when comprehension is

uncertain, critically evaluate what is understood, and then respond (Vandergrift, 2004).

Negotiation then became the value under assessment as it resembles what Vandergrift

mentioned. There are many difficulties in interactive listening assessment; the non-

44

collaborative way of assessment like oral interviews restricts the listener to eliciting output

and following regular patterns of natural conversation ‘question-answer’, besides speaking is

the only skill assessed through this kind of activities as stated by Buck (2001). Nevertheless,

listener is a participant in communicative interaction, accordingly “assessing how well

listeners can perform in collaborative interactive situations requires actual communication

between two or more participants” (Jingyan & Baldauf Jr, 2011, p.35). Thus in order to

achieve a good understanding of this complex interaction, “it is necessary to conduct a close

examination of interactive listening performance, investigating the two-way process between

the listener and the speaker which focuses on what happens on the part of the listener”

(Xiaoxian & Yan, 2010, p.22). Most of research reached the conclusion that claims that

interactive listening performance is assessed through the effective use of reception strategies

(Vandergrift, 1997; Buck, ibid; Xiaoxian & Yan, ibid).

Conclusion

The chapter reviews a broad definition of the speaking and listening skills in respect to

what communicative language teaching approach (CLT) implies. Here with the information

retention and comprehension have been accentuated in the light of the interaction nature of

the spoken discourse. In accordance to this nature, speaking and listening instruction is seen

in relation to real-life communication influence, the social and functional view of language

teaching, thus, teaching norms, classroom activities and assessment are widely elicited. In

short, the active learning view is coined with the concept teaching/learning listening and

speaking as receptive and productive skills. It implies, consequently, the integration of both

skills in interactive real-life language use which simulation techniques ensure to thrive in the

language classroom.

CHAPTER TWO:

SIMULATION TASK-BASED LEARNING AND TEACHING

Introduction 45

2.1 Definition of Simulation 45

2.1.1 Simulation vs. Role-play 47

2.1.2 Simulation Activities vs. Games 50

2.1.3 Experiential Theory and Simulation 50

2.1.4 Simulation and Communication 54

2.1.5 Simulation and Reality 56

2.1.6 Simulation vs. Real-life Task 57

2.2 Benefits of Simulations 57

2.3 Simulation Structure 62

2.3.1 Problem Solving 62

2.3.2 Critical Thinking 63

2.3.3 Decision Making 64

2.3.4 Negotiation 64

2.4 Simulation in ELT Context 65

2.4.1 Simulations in the Language Classroom 66

2.4.2 Simulation: Acquisition vs. Learning 67

2.4.3 Preparing for Simulations 68

2.4.4 Simulation Activity and Motivation 69

2.4.5 The Use of Authentic Video in Simulation 71

2.4.6 Simulation as Language Assessment 73

2.5 Simulation Discourse Analysis 74

2.5.1 Grammatical Analysis 74

2.5.2 Functional Analysis 75

2.6 Researches Related to Simulation Activities 76

Conclusion 79

45

Chapter Two: Simulation Task-based Learning and Teaching

Introduction

Moving towards new innovations in language teaching and learning, namely active

techniques has led to reconsideration of old practices in language teaching/learning and

implementation of new ones. Simulation activities, as one of these techniques, are considered

as the core focus of this chapter. This technique brings its own technicalities to the classroom

which, consequently, pushes teachers and learners to step outside their creed. To put it simply,

simulation activities are efficient and effective activities as they provide naturalistic

environment for language use and generate ample opportunities of real communication in

EFL classrooms. Thus, self-generated real communication, genuine language use in

experience-based tasks, the activation of higher order thinking, planting the sense of

cooperation to solve a problem or make decision, which simulation activities brought to the

language teaching/ learning, represent the improvements of EFL classroom techniques and

practices.

2.1 Definition of Simulation

Group discussions, debates, collaborative projects and internships are different activities

that fall in the realm of active learning techniques. Simulation activity came fifty years ago to

form part of these techniques and gained huge popularity since. It is not immediately clear as

a technique used in the classrooms; hence, a thorough definition and explanation of its

technicalities are needed.

Simulation activity has been intertwined with the language techniques in the university

classrooms for decades. This technique was integrated in the classroom in the late 1950’s and

early 1960’s, and after this decade, simulation activity has increasingly been used as a

teaching technique. In 1977, simulation was a clearly defined technique as it was newly

46

introduced to the ELT field. Kerr (1977) defines it as governed by scenario and objectives and

the participants should follow a set of procedures and stages to perform in the situation as if it

is real. A more comprehensive definition of simulation is delivered by Jones (1982) “a reality

of function in a simulated and structured environment” (p.5). In other words, simulation

involves the impersonation of a function and perceived it as real, and adaptation to real

aspects of environment. In 1995, Jones defines again simulation as “an event in which the

participants have (functional) roles, duties and sufficient key information about the problem to

carry out these duties without play acting or inventing key facts” (p. 18). Acceptance of the

reality of function means that a participant should function in the role as the real person in the

real-life would. The role of students in simulation activities, therefore, is participating by

taking the functional roles such as a doctor, reporter, politician, etc., living the event, shaping

it and carrying out their duties and responsibilities.

Jones (1995) stresses in his definition the problem solving structure of the simulation

activity that depends on the real condition of the situation. He (1982) further contends that

simulation activity is based on structured situation which involves problem solving and

decision making. Hence, any kind of problem-solving activity where problems are negotiated

and solved can be starting point in a simulation. Thereby, the efficacy of the simulation

activity reveals when participants come to a decision. (Harmer, 2007)

On the one hand, a simulation activity is the situation in which a person is placed into a

scenario and is directly responsible for the changes that occur as a result of their decisions

(Madsa, 2012, p. 3). This responsibility is driven from the personal involvement of

participants who start to perceive environment as real situation and characters as real people

despite the fact that according to Ur (1996) the group role, situation and task they are given

are imaginary. Kerr (1977) adds that participants in the simulation activity make a decision

individually or jointly on the basis of their own personalities as the simulation activity is not

47

controlled and participants participate in the simulation by their own character, experience,

skills, and knowledge (Jones, 1983; Harmer, 2007).

On the other hand, Mack (2009) defines the term simulation as “a method of training or

research that attempts to create a realistic experience in a controlled environment” (p. 4). The

controlled environment is a setting for learning that models the real world context to be

studied and forms safe context of learning and experimenting. Due to limited access to real

world environment, the dangerous “contact, interaction or consequences between the

participants and the world outside the classroom” (Jones, 1982, p. 5), and learners’ low

competency to understand and perform adequately in the outside world system, the classroom

seems the best place to resemble the outside world and generate a safe controlled learning

context by simple arrangement of classroom furniture, Jones (1982) puts. Further to that,

Jones (1995) argues that simulation is the most successful activity when there is dispersion

with the real world. Simulation, then, offers controlled reality which allows experimentation

of aspects of reality that otherwise would be impossible to study outside in real life. However,

the challenge is how much students immerse within the reality of the scenario. “The goal is

not to win but to acquire the knowledge and understanding” (Madsa, 2012, p. 3), transmitting

this information to the students would ease their immersion within the scenario as the pressure

of having only the expected correct performance is diminished. In essence, simulation

activity is the actual manifestation of the interconnection between language education and

professional training (Jones, 1983), in other words, it describes the relation between theory

and application in more authentic way where failure is as desired as success, Jones (1983)

says.

2.1.1 Simulation vs. Role-play

Talking about simulation activity and role play one can easily regard their similarities

but hardly distinguish them in terms of differences. There is no clear cut between simulation

48

activity and role play as Madsa (2012) argues that simulation activity “may contain elements

of a game, a role-play, or an activity that acts as a metaphor” (p.4). However, there is a

difference even if it is slightly noticeable. Simulation activity is considered as complex form

of role plays as Ladousse (1987) puts it “role play activities range from highly-controlled

guided conversations at one end of the scale, to improvised drama activities at the other; from

simple rehearsed dialogue performance, to highly complex simulated scenarios”(p.3). Role

play generally focuses on prescriptive themes and specific language. Learners act out small

scenes limited improvisation as they stick to the information in the role cards. Besides, the

aim of these role cards is offering the students opportunities to practice specific pieces of

language which can be grammar points, functional areas and lexical groups (Herbert &

Sturtridge, 1979). Conversely, simulation activity makes use of different documents besides

role cards like news flashes and newspaper articles, etc. as well as provides real problems and

gets the participants more personally involved. However, in a role-play, as the learners take

on characters that are not their own, they will add much of the invented information to

complete the scenario.

In simulation activities, students experience the freedom of participation in real-life

events, while in role-plays; students are restricted to what is in the role cards. Hence, on the

one hand, the difference is a matter of degree as participants in simulation activity participate

in an event and feel free to adopt their own vision in solving the problem and making

decision. In this respect, Jones (1982) declares that simulation “is not taught” (p.2), but role

play is taught in terms of what should learners say and do. Participants in simulation activity

do not play role but they fulfil a function as Jones (1983) points out that participants do not

pretend to be someone else but adopt only “a new surname”. On the other hand simulation

and role play took different aims as simulation activity aims at encouraging communication

49

which occurs as a survival need, however, role play’s aim is to practise typical activities

students will probably perform in real life.

Role-play is an effective way to develop students’ communicative competence,

especially the sociolinguistic and strategic competence discussed in Canale and Swain’s

(1980) framework as it “allows learners to explore the effects of different contextual factors-

power relationships, setting, communicative purposes, etc.” (Thornbury & Slade, 2006, p.

265). It also helps the students acquire interactional knowledge because role-play usually

involves a finite interaction between characters rather than the resolution of a problem

(Herbert & Sturtridge, 1979). Thereby, the inclusion of interactions and problem solving

braided the practice to be more simulation oriented. Role plays can be communicative in the

sense that students are provided opportunities to communicate together, however, students

still lack reality of function that simulation provides as Jones (1982) points out, in simulation

activity the participants step inside the roles and behave as the person would do in the real-life

position solving real but not imaginary issues. Unlike simulation activity, role play exerts on

students to pretend to be someone else and not to take on the role and often are “told what

they think about certain subject” (Harmer, 2007, p. 125), besides students are engaged in

artificial conversations where the stretches of language are predicted in advance. On one

hand, simulating reality allows students to cope with real-life situations using their own

personal background and language experiences to any situation in the simulation activity in a

variety of activities such as resourcing, discussing, and analyzing. On the other hand, students

may express themselves more freely when they hide behind the character they are playing

(Harmer, ibid).

As presented above, the distinction is not clear and it could be only proposed that in

role-plays students are cast of different characters, whereas in simulation activities

participants do not take any roles and play themselves in real-life situations. Herbert and

50

Sturtridge (ibid) call this kind of simulation, role-simulation. Because of the fact that

participants will pretend to be in the assigned role, as opposed to taking on the role, the

opportunities to communicate will be much more oriented towards the prescribed

communication rather than towards the actual real behaviour that the role imposes. Whereby,

Herbert and Sturtridge (ibid) suggest that role-play is more supportive of the shy or weak

student as the possible end-product will be more exaggerated language than that produced by

role-simulation.

2.1.2 Simulation Activities vs. Games

Games are another class activity that overlaps with simulation activities and teachers

often confuse them with the latter. The point both simulation activities and games share is that

the players in a game and the participants in a simulation are responsible of their role and

accepting the conditions within their particular environment (Jones, 1995, p. 13). Games can

be communicative activities, yet they lack reality of function. This point is what constitutes

the difference between games and simulation activities as Jones (ibid) puts it “the key

distinction between games and simulation activities is the existence of real-world ethics” (p.

13). Participants in games have one function which is players and one goal which is wining no

matter if unethical decision has to be made. Whereas, in a simulation the participants do not

only play part, but function in real-like event adhering to real world ethics to attain

professional knowledge and not to perform a task. (Jones, ibid)

2.1.3 Experiential Theory and Simulation

English Language Teaching (ELT) has been struggling to refine its theoretical and

practical implications, along the different theories; cognitive and behavioural learning theories

which both count no basis for experience and ignore its impact on the learning process.

However, finally, ELT is seen as a holistic adaptive process that combines experience,

cognition, and behaviour in leaning.

51

Learning is defined as “the process whereby knowledge is created through the

transformation of experience. Knowledge results from the combination of grasping and

transforming experience” (Kolb, 1984, p. 41). David Kolb states here that learning is a multi-

dimensional process. Kolb's experiential learning model begins with two polar dimensions

that explain the grasping of experience; (1) concrete experience - the tangible qualities of the

immediate experience, (2) abstract conceptualisation - the process of analysing the data

received and the internal process of developing concepts and theory from the experience.

Transforming experience is depicted in two other dimensions; (3) reflective observation - a

collection of data through observation and critical thought regarding the experience, (4) active

experimentation - a modification of behaviour and knowledge occurs, while the implications

for the future are considered. The completion of Kolb’s cycle considers two ways process that

employs the concepts and theories that result from the reflection and conceptualisation

processes which in turn put at work to create experience and possible modifications for future

one.

Hence, the experience-based language teaching, frequently cited dimension of CLT and

learner- centred approach, caught much interest in recent years and instructional frameworks

were advocated to task design that promotes the learners as active participants in experiences

designed on the basis of the learner’s unique interest, style and goals (Richard and Rodgers,

1986). Thereby, experiential learning, which merges co-operative education, active learning

and training, develops interpersonal relationships through promoting interactive learning as

well as enhances academic learning by bridging theory and practice. Experiential learning, or

active learning, interactive learning, or “learning by doing” have been used compatibly in

ELT and take large place in reshaping the learning process, consequently, learning now is

conceived as follows:

1. Learning is best conceived as a process, not in terms of outcomes.

52

2. All learning is re-learning.

3. Learning requires the resolution of conflicts between dialectically opposed modes of

adaptation to the world.

4. Learning is a holistic process of adaptation.

5. Learning results from synergetic transactions between the person and the environment.

6. Learning is the process of creating knowledge. (Kolb’s (1984) proposition of

characteristics of experiential learning)

Experience and context overlap in large part as according to Luoma (2004) context

“includes concrete aspects of the situation such as the place where the talk happens, and

cognitive and experiential aspects such as the language use experiences that the speakers

bring to the situation and the goals they have in a particular conversation” (p. 30). As far as

the learning experience is concerned the classroom is the platform for the context that is

represented in the form of learning environment that in turn Fulcher and Davidson (2007)

define as “set of learning experiences that are designed to lead to the acquisition of language

and communication” (p. 25). With the new requirements of learning, today, turning passive

students to active ones, promoting greater interest in the subject material, enhancing intrinsic

learning satisfaction, increasing understanding and retention of course material, developing

the desire and ability to be autonomous continuous learners, improving communication, and

interpersonal, problem solving, analytical thinking, and critical thinking skills of the students,

which adheres to experiential learning (Brickner & Etter, 2008), urge instructors to apply

different tasks that reflect experience-based learning. In this respect, simulation is one of the

activities that serve as a best referent to these tasks. Thus, learners, in simulation activity,

interact with real-world scenarios, apply their knowledge and skills to the experience, which

they perceive as real in respect to its outcomes, and reflect the manipulation of learning for

pedagogical purposes. To put another way, the learner is immersed in a complex, evolving

53

realistic situation in which he/she tries to adapt the experience and the social reality it

represents. The immersion is then based on the changes of the cognitive and behavioural

manners due to experience.

García-Carbonell et al. (2014) provide a model that represents the overlapping

relationship between Kolb’s experiential theory and simulation by adding interlanguage

learning as they define “A learner’s interlanguage is his/her evolving system of rules which

results from a variety of processes that occur when learning a second language (L2)” (p.11).

Their model consists of three phases; interlanguage briefing phase which stands for active

experimentation, the language learner becomes aware of his/her language skills, interlanguage

action phase which implies concrete experience, the learner uses the language within an actual

context, and finally, the interlanguage debriefing phase which combines the reflective

observation and abstract conceptualization phases, the learner reflects on and analyzes the

experience, so as to enable the projection of future linguistic experience (See Figure 2).

Figure 1: Model of simulation and gaming, experiential language learning and

acquisition of professional competences (from García-Carbonell & Andreu-Andrés, 2014,

p.12)

54

The interlanguage debriefing in this model is clearly defined when the participants taste

the success or failure of their decisions which result from the reflection and conceptualization

of their own performance. Put simply, the debriefing of simulation activity, as Jones (1982, p.

48) points out, should concentrate on those aspects of the behaviour that correspond to the

teacher’s aims and serves to help learners to see their behaviours objectively from their

experience as participants and to allow them to integrate into the course of events in the

simulation activity. The debriefing stage helps learners to describe and evaluate their feelings

and experiences during the simulation activities and apply the knowledge gathered in the

classroom within the wider context of real life. Worth to note, Herbert and Sturtridge (1979)

state that in a language learning situation the 'substitute elements' that are represented by

simulation to depict real life in more genuine way can be any kind of the information; the

problem itself or the experience and attitudes of the participants themselves.

2.1.4 Simulation and Communication

Simulation theory came to depict the communicative language acquisition through

interaction and experience. In essence, in order to improve communication skills, ample

opportunities to communicate with others should be provided to learners. Simulation is a

perfect activity that offers these opportunities for learners to communicate in the target

language as it provides the participants with “the mutual need to communicate and the need is

inherent in the activity” according to Jones (1982, p.9).

This technique entails unexpected events in which “real communication”, not artificial

(acted) communication is generated automatically and hence communication, which has been

a challenge for long time for teachers and learners, is driven to the classrooms. As learners are

immersed in scenarios where a need for surviving in the situation by solving problems and

making decisions that are achieved by the instinct resulted from the responsibilities and duties

of the function, real-world communication is given impulse in the classroom (Jones, ibid).

55

Thereby, simulation activity offers authentic opportunity to practice a full range of

communication skills such as analysis, advertising, negotiations, journalism, etc. (Jones,

1982; Jones, 1983). Adding to that, Jones (1982) says that in simulation activities, the failure

in communication between participants is as valuable as success and consequently,

communication breakdown resulted in the simulation lead to negotiation of meaning, which

will lead in turn to more communication. Whereby, in simulation activity a good deal of the

learning (communication) may occur afterwards through reflection of the outcomes and

follow-up discussion (Jones, 1982, p. 9). Herbert and Sturtridge (1979) put that in the

discussion stage of the realisation of a simulation activity students are placed in a realistic

communicative situation which is freer and more evolutionary than normal role-playing

activities. Simulation activity changes the classroom as it tends to generate authentic

communication by changing the teacher-student asymmetry of the conventional classroom

when “the individual participants speak and react as themselves” (Ur, 1996, p.132).

According to Littlewood (1981), the learners must develop skills/strategies for using

language to communicate meanings as effectively as possible in concrete situations. Learners

have to develop skills/strategies to communicate properly, not to use language correctly, for

effective communication in a certain situation. When teaching is focused on language itself,

learners cannot experience real communication since there is no negotiation of meanings.

Simulation activities, then, are an ideal way of developing communication skills, since

communication plays a vital role in simulation activities. They can provide the environment

where real communication can be carried out because participants are constantly negotiating

meaning while fulfilling their duties in simulation activities. In simulation activities,

communication will be always generated to discuss issues, and learners will be involved in

various types of communicative activities (Jones, 1982). Within simulation activities, learners

will face many situations where different communication skills may be required. Sometimes

56

learners have to initiate the conversation to do the job, have to convince others by presenting

their thoughts, discuss potential solutions for the problem presented in the simulation or they

may have to reach an agreement (Jones, ibid). Through exploring different situations, learners

will learn how to communicate properly and effectively. As a result, learners will be able to

improve their communication skills/strategies.

2.1.5 Simulation and Reality

Reality has been always an integral part of simulation as According to Mack (2009) “the

earliest practical use of simulation was in the construction of physical models of real objects”

(p.4). The reality in simulation activities is provided in the authentic data which the learners

gather since “they involve language use in interactive contexts” and use “elements of real-life

conversation” (O’Malley & Pierce, 1996, p. 85). O’Malley and Pierce (ibid) say that such

activities are more authentic because they provide a format for using the real-life conversation

such as repetitions, interruptions, recitations, facial expressions and gestures. In addition,

simulations can provide realistic situations that convey a depiction of the outside world into

the classroom and stimulate real communication by allowing the students to take on the

functional duties that resemble to those in real life. On a general perceptive, real

communication involves real people who share their real personality and thought in the

communication while discussing real issues. While on a specific perspective, interaction,

exchanging thoughts and negotiating meanings that result from the attempt to fulfil the duty

that the function of the participants imposes generate real communication in simulations.

Thereby, Activities as simulations can provide a realistic context which portrays real life

situations where participants become a part of the communicative event and involved in real

communicative act. Besides, the realistic experiences in simulations give learners the

confidence when communicating with others in a real situation later on not because they

know the performance but because they can perform as Jones (1983) put it, it is not the “I’ve

57

read it, so now I know it” type of confidence: It is the “I’ve done it, so I can do it” confidence

(p. 12).

2.1.6 Simulation vs. Real-life Task

Tomlinson and Masuhara (2000) find that simulation activities were more economical

than real-life tasks as they aided “visibility by making certain kinds of phenomena more

accessible for observation and measurement, and by introducing clarity into what is otherwise

complex, chaotic and confused”; and they allowed numerous aspects of a system to be varied

“in ways that yield profitable insights into how the system operates” (p. 153). Besides, they

add that simulations free the participants from the obstacles that inhibited their thinking in

their usual working environment and to put them in situations that they had never previously

encountered. However, simulation is said to model real life environment and approaches the

aspects of language appearing in the real situations, thereby, Herbert and Sturtridge (1979)

say “the closer the simulation can be to reality and to the student's own first language role or

new foreign language role, the closer the language that he produces will be to that which he

will need to produce in the real situation.”(p.9)

2.2 Benefits of Simulations

For most of the literature, simulation activity was rather focused upon eliciting their

positive impacts on learning. For it was suggested that simulation activity develop real-time

communication by approaching real-life experience (Jones, 1982). As simulation activity

generates purposeful communication that makes participants make decision or solve problem,

participants therefore apply their own background knowledge and first language experiences

to a situation. Thus, they become motivated and their interest and enthusiasm set at work.

Worth noting, simulation task increases student (and teacher) motivation when English is

referred to as a deferred need, which is the case in EFL situations (Jones, ibid).

58

Another benefit of simulation task among many is active involvement of the

participants. In simulation activity, the participants behave as themselves which gives them a

real insight of immersion in interactive event because simulation activities force students to

apply themselves to a particular situation and as a result they “gain a better understanding of

the person, as well as the actions and motivations that prompt certain behaviours… explore

their feelings” (Moore, 2009, p. 209). Therefore, participants get involved in the learning

process extensively and explicitly. Thereby, language acquisition becomes a matter of free

involvement in interaction.

Reducing anxiety levels is one essential advantage that simulation activity offers.

Simulation activity reduces the stress associated with learning and using new language (Jones,

1982) and hence, it encourages language development (Krashen, 1982) through three main

positive effects of simulation activity: firstly, crumbling the dominant interactive pattern that

underpinned the classrooms for a long time, teacher-teacher relationship, as in this kind of

activity students are given the necessary background information and environment to solve

the problem. Furthermore, participants get more personally involved as their self-appreciation

of autonomous learning is raised due to the fact that they take control of their own destiny of

learning within the simulation activity. Secondly, the chance of playing the role as themselves

rather than the role of someone else gives them more freedom and confidence while

performing the task. Thirdly, reducing the teacher power in the classroom as he is not allowed

to interfere in the simulation activity and he monitors participants’ progress unobtrusively can

free the learners from the teacher domination and explicit feedback especially for introvert

students. Furthermore the fact that simulation activities offer a relatively safe environment for

making mistakes and receiving error correction right after the simulation activity is finished

(Jones, 1982; Jones, 1983) reduces the anxiety about the accuracy of the utterances produced

and hence shifting attention to the meaning and thus the task achievement.

59

Another innate benefit of simulation activity is fulfilling students' need for realism

desire. The sense of realism in the simulation activities is not according to Jones (1982) the

result of the reality of function only but also the documents such as handwritten letter, journal

article, and interview results, etc. Simulation activities, then, provide a realistic setting for

more extensive interaction with different input resources where participants explore the

learning out of the boundaries of classroom constraints that in most cases limit the learners’

resources to learn, Tomlinson and Masuhara (2000) assert that simulation activity “allowed us

to free the participants from the constraints that inhibited their thinking in their usual working

environment and to put them in situations that they had never previously encountered”

(p.153). The ambiguity and the uncertainty of what is coming in the simulation activity depict

in most part the situation in real world outside the classroom and hence the fact that the

learner feels that he is acquainted with such conditions puts him in a better position for

learning.

Fluency development is the utmost concern of simulation activity when speaking about

language development. It is obvious that simulation’s motor generator is communication that

is produced as an immediate survival need and overwhelmed by the ‘doing’ principle of

communicative teaching. Communication appears then as a result of participants’ immersion

in a situation in which its constraints exert its influence on the resultant communication and

fluency becomes all what matters. The participants are involved in solving problems, making

decisions, forming judgments and identifying their emotions and thoughts in the social

environment they are put in, consequently, their concern about the utterance form is decreased

and fluency is developed. According to Jones (1982) simulation and language are inseparable

and the language changes according to the role allocated to the participants. Hence, language

development is not a matter of correct linguistic forms in terms of grammar and pronunciation

but appropriate language to, as Jones (ibid) puts, “behaviour, context, motive, meaning, and

60

shared knowledge” (p. 8). Unlike many tasks, in a simulation language use means

communication which results from task performance and not a test of correctness. In essence,

the task-based simulation emphasises the ability to perform a task instead of explicitly

teaching grammatical structures.

A new feature of simulation activity is the integration of different skills. It exceeds the

four language skills to include the communication skills. Simulation then is the typical

communicative task and fall under the category of what Littlewood (1981, p.17) calls “whole-

task practice”. Simulation task teaches communication through acquiring the intercultural and

interpersonal competence, manifesting the pragmatic meaning to use language appropriately,

to develop the nonverbal components of language. Furthermore, simulation task stimulates

cognitive abilities by activating high order thinking skills such as analysing, evaluating, and

synthesising data and background knowledge provided to the students. As simulation is

whole-task practice, all the skills are put under focus as in one simulation speaking, listening,

writing and reading are complementary taught in different stages.

Long term learning is another characteristic of simulation activity as the process of

learning that demands cognitive processing remains for long time as Jones (1982) puts it

“participants remember vividly what they tried to communicate, how they tried to do it and

what happened as a result” (p. 9). All these processes become part of memory that will be put

at work whenever the learners encounter a situation that requires similar actions.

Self-driven communication in simulation arises out of the structure of the simulation

activity, because the participants engage in studying and analysing the problem to reach

decision together. Jones (ibid) argues that the discussion in simulation activity that results

from the mutual need of all the participants in the interaction is different from ordinary

classroom discussion and thus simulation activity promotes the cohesive, psychological and

functional language use as Mack (2009) says that simulation in teaching and learning

61

concerns itself mostly with the psychological and social processes (p.4). Participants adhere to

every step of problem solving or decision making process cohesively together and thus learn

the social manifestation of language and deal with different personalities, genders, races,

cultures, backgrounds due to the random allocation of roles which is according to Jones (ibid)

beneficial for language learning and the wide range of emotional and personal involvement.

This will give chance to the learner to experiment different emotions and multiple ways to

deal with each category of persons. The simulation is seen as the communicative event, in

which participants use the language to achieve a given purpose.

Simulation activity encourages functional language use. It provides variety of functions

which according to Jones (1982) constitute rich platform for language skills use and promotes

functional appropriateness over grammatical correctness. The learner has the chance to

interact in communicative exchanges by using a full range of grammatical-semantic notions

and communicative functions. However, it is noteworthy here that function in simulation

activity exceeds its ordinary definition which is doing purposeful action but using the

appropriate social skills, language and behaviour that represent the role in the best way.

Simulation activity helps the learner confront and identify the target culture as it breaks

down the culture by its non-discriminatory nature (Jones, ibid). It, for example digests speech

acts which are different from the learners’ first language L1. Speech acts are generally

difficult for L2 learners to realize in terms of syntactic structure, conventionalized

expressions, and sociocultural difference between their L1 and L2. Simulation activities

provide the opportunity to make and respond to any illocutionary act as they encourage

communication and reflective experimentation of the knowledge needed to perform and

understand illocutionary acts which constitutes part of communicative competence and is

included in Canale’s (1983) sociolinguistic competence and in Bachman’s (1990)

illocutionary competence under pragmatic ability.

62

Autonomy is another important advantage of simulation activity as it exceeds the

autonomous learning style in dealing with the problems to evaluating their own simulations in

the form of follow up discussion. Littlewood (1981) puts that the learner must learn to use

feedback to judge his success, and if necessary, remedy failure by using different language.

When the learner assesses his performance by him/herself, this will lead to greater confidence

and high professional learning.

Simulation activity in its other facet develops interpersonal relationships, thus the

quality of interaction is enhanced through this activity. Proupore (2005) puts that problem

solving tasks, among them simulation, produce more comprehensible output and thus leads to

more interaction. The simulation nature which resembles self-generated communication, as

Jones (1982) puts, justifies the aforementioned simulation’s facet.

2.3 Simulation Structure

It has been proved that simulation activities foster the development of professional skills

such as team work, negotiation, decision making or the development of interpersonal

relationships. Jones (1982) signals out three main characteristics of simulation activity that

will be polemically considered in any designed simulation activity among which structured

environment plays an important role. He defines it as “where the participants have all the facts

and information provided for them” (pp. 4-5).

2.3.1 Problem Solving

Problem solving forms one of the basic axes of simulation structures (Jones, 1982)

which he claims “it must be… built around some problem or problems” (p.5); thus, the notion

problem-based learning (PBL) overlaps, in a large part, with simulation’s structure. PBL was

developed in the 1960s at McMaster University in Canada. Merrill (2005) points out that, real

problems, which are characterized by messy and ill-defined nature, are the merits of PBL.

Merrill explains PBL as requiring information-gathering by the student besides reflection on

63

the process and on the content, that is, “people work together … by collecting information

about the problem, reviewing that information and making a decision on their findings”

(Barker and Gaut, 2002, p.160). Apparently, simulation and PBL share the collaborative

learning that aims at actively engage learners in sharing their learning while solving a

problem. Jones (ibid) puts that a simulation is the one that is structured around a problem that

is sufficiently explicit to preserve reality of function, and allows the participants the power

and responsibility to shape the event and tackle the problem. In short, simulation activities

spin-off PBL principles, that is involving participants emotionally, intellectually and morally

in the problem solving.

2.3.2 Critical Thinking

In the process of problem solving, students develop and use cognitive abilities to

analyse their options and evaluate their solutions; in this vein, simulation activities “give

students the chance to apply theory, develop critical skills, and provide a welcome relief from

the everyday tasks of reading and preparing for classes” (Kanner, 2007). An additional benefit

of many of these simulations is the introduction of an aspect of realism into the students’

experience in which students have to deal with the processes of analysing real aspects of the

problem, to put it another way students become actively involved in the learning. According

to Bonwell and Eison (1991) put forcefully: “students must engage in … higher-order

thinking tasks as analysis, synthesis, and evaluation” (p. iii) and they point out clearly that

students should be involved in activities that immerse them in “doing things” and “thinking

about what they are doing” (p. iii). Bonwell and Eison (ibid) suggest simulations as the kind

of activities which promote doing and thinking at the same time because students deal with

problems which are of a high complexity before they eventually reach a decision which in

turn requires hiring decision-making skills.

64

2.3.3 Decision Making

The other basic axes of simulation, that Jones (1982) mentioned, is decision making.

Jones (1983) puts it in his word “in a simulation you will often be working as a member of a

team, sharing the decision-making …with each other” (p.1). However, Herbert and

Sturtridge’s (1979) claim that simulation’s function which depends on the situation, that is to

say, in a first language situation the function is training in decision-making or in making those

involved aware of a problem; while in the foreign language situation this function is more

oriented to the language-practice function, is worth considering. However, the reality of

function that simulation brings to the classroom learning, reveals new signs of training in

decision making and raising awareness towards the problems, especially when considering the

eight simulations Jones (1983) designed, it is seen that these simulations are meant to

engender the decision making skills in foreign language learning situation.

2.3.4 Negotiation

Meaning negotiation is a process, in which the participants in a conversation collaborate

with each other to solve problem. To do this, they employ meaning negotiation skills,

including negotiation devices such as confirmation checks, comprehension checks,

clarification requests, repetition requests, and repetition (Lee, 2000, p.103). Simulation goes

along with the strategic component of the communicative competence mentioned in Canale

and Swain’s model (1983) as the negotiation devices help learners to indicate any

misunderstanding of what is being said or meant and thus improving communication.

Simulation activity forms great platform for negotiating meaning as it entails generic context

for potential misunderstanding that is similar to the one that may occur in real world which

requires negotiation of meaning.

Meaning negotiation skills are essential for learning a second or foreign language, in

that they can facilitate ‘comprehensible input’ (Krashen, 1982), ‘comprehensible output’

65

(Swain, 1995), and enhance motivation (Larsen-Freeman, 2000). Poupore (2005) elicits six

types of interaction variables: negotiation of meaning (N-Meaning), negotiation of form (N-

Form), negotiation of task content (N-Content), negotiation of task procedure (N-Procedure),

negotiation of personal experience (N-Experience), and self-initiated repair. He (ibid) after a

research contends that problem-solving tasks “produced more quality interaction than did

jigsaw tasks” (p. 248). As participants in the simulation activity focus on the problem to

solve, a tendency towards negotiating meaning and content will be high. This was confirmed

by Poupore (2005) as he contends “problem-solving tasks had a much higher success rate in

producing additional information responses” (p.249).

2.4 Simulation in ELT Context

Crookall (1984) points out that simulation in the EFL classroom is designed to create or

approach authentic social experience in which students are encouraged to use language

spontaneously. He adds that the more a student believes in the real world reflection, the

‘communicativeness’ of his language appears. The challenge of accepting the authenticity of

the simulated situation is more likely to appear in ELT (English Language Teaching)

simulations more than non-ELT as “many non-EFL simulations can… be perceived by

students as more real and credible than many EFL simulations”, according Crookall (ibid,

p.263). Taking this account in regard, role assignment has a direct influence on the way

students perceive the reality of the simulated situation. In 1983, Jones designed eight

simulations addressing foreign learners of English. In his simulations participants may adopt a

new surname. Crookall (ibid) criticized this procedure of role assignment as, according to

him, when students adopt a pseudonym, their belief in the simulated situation and therefore

their authentic language use will be hindered. He further contends that this will cause a large

discrepancy between the EFL participant’s own self or identity and the kind of personality

that he or she is expected to assume even if adopting new pseudonym does not “involve them

66

in pretending to be someone with a different personality” (Jones, 1983, p.1). Language is

another aspect that might be dealt with from learners’ perspective, that is, EFL students

should be involved with social and human aspect of the situation to see language from

learning perspective but rather spontaneous and normal perspective, Crookall says.

When it comes to the implementation of non-EFL simulations, there should be a special

consideration of Herbert and Sturtridge’s (1979) claim which is that simulation in ESP

(English for Specific Purposes) is particularly relevant, for linguistic, as well as for

academic/occupational reasons. Non-EFL simulations are the most appropriate teaching

techniques in ESP as they served in developing the two facets of ESP; teaching ESP and

teaching a speciality to speakers of other languages through the medium of English, Crookall

(1984) puts. Worth to note, what is still uncovered in the field of English for Specific

Purposes (ESP) whether these be academic or occupational, how simulations find their place

among these needs to reach optimum students satisfaction. The challenge is then how to

design a simulation that fits the needs of all ESP students.

2.4.1 Simulations in the Language Classroom

The development of second language acquisition (SLA) depends on the classroom

interaction in which “classroom settings play an effective role as social settings” (Yu, 2008, p.

48). The realistic social role is depicted inside the classroom through activities which promote

communication in social settings. As an example negotiation as a part of classroom

interaction is best developed through simulated negotiation (Yu, ibid, p.49).

Thus simulation activity in the language classroom changes the teacher and learner

roles; although there is no teacher in simulation activities, his role remains crucial during the

simulation task since he is the controller who makes the simulation possible (Jones, 1982, p.

40). Simulation activity provide the opportunity to the learners to be active participants in the

67

social setting created in the classroom and free from the teacher’s dominance. Simulation

activities, in essence, adheres to the learner-centred approach as it involves the learner’s

needs, desires and expectations in the realisation of the simulation as Kerr (1977) asserts that

for a successful simulation the conceptual level and theme need to match the participants’

expectations.

2.4.2 Simulation: Acquisition vs. Learning

Acquisition has been perceived for a long time as a subconscious process while learning

is the conscious process, where the learned language is in the brain, according to Krashen

(1982). However, these definitions are controversial as the concrete entity of language in the

brain (learned knowledge) cannot be acquired subconsciously. Krashen’s definition clearly

demonstrates confusion about the relationship between learning and acquisition. Learners

know that they are communicating (learning a language) but they are not aware that they are

acquiring the language by processing the learned language. In real world, acquiring how to

communicate is much more needed than acquiring a language. As simulations are untaught

events (Jones, 1982, p. 2), explicit language teaching does not exist. Participants can acquire

how to communicate implicitly during simulation activities as no explicit instruction is

provided by the teacher and the participants discover how to say or what to say in any

situation in the simulation by themselves. They, for example, speak in different ways, use

nonverbal behaviour to make others understand what they mean, or negotiate meaning to

solve communication breakdowns. Simply put, Learners as participants are the ones who

shape the event and are involved in the communicative action, thus they can acquire how to

communicate implicitly using simulation activities. As “simulations provide ‘input’ that is

reasonably comprehensible” (Crookall, 1984, p. 264), learners get involved in the situation,

without worrying about the language, and the rest (acquisition) will follow.

68

2.4.3 Preparing for Simulations

Herbert and Sturtridge (1979) note that in a successful simulation the complexity of the

overall professional content, is grasped when students realize the detailed content during the

simulation. Thus, to prepare for simulation as a continuous process different stages need to be

followed and some information should be given appropriately on time.

The preparation of simulation implies student integration as noted by Herbert and

Sturtridge (ibid). In the first phase in structuring any simulation students should be provided

with information i.e., the problem discussed in the simulation, their task, the rules and

constraints. Briefing is the name devoted to this phase, wherein, as Jones (ibid, p. 34)

contends, the controller should provide enough information for the participants to understand

what is involved in the briefing stage and ensure that all required documents are present.

Simply put, in this phase role acceptance is emphasized and not to play or act, so that learners

can behave properly in the simulations. This phase according to Herbert and Sturtridge (1979)

is presented in the form of skills cooperation, e.g. not-taking, reading and listening

comprehension. A linguistic input practice can be then forwarded in this phase, they (ibid)

put. The second phase includes preparatory discussion. Sub-grouping is the way to achieve

these discussions which take place in smaller groups and the results that come out are

discussed in larger groups (Herbert and Sturtridge, ibid). Simulation at this phase shows the

first signs of cooperative learning as the learners learn to negotiate their suggestions about the

problem solving to reach a joint solution. Herbert and Sturtridge (ibid) recommend tape

recording of the discussion in the simulation to be viewed and assessed in the follow-up

session. The follow-up stage is the last stage in the simulation in which the teacher evaluates

the participants through written or oral work, according to them. This stage is referred to as

the debriefing which is the most critical stage of the simulation process. Jones (1982, p. 47)

69

suggests that it would be a good idea to start the debriefing by asking each participant to

explain briefly what s/he did and why.

2.4.4 Simulation Activity and Motivation

The word ‘motivation’ comes from the Latin movere – ‘to move’. It means pushing

people to ‘move’ so that they respond. Students respond to their learning by devoting their

time and effort to increase their achievements. Two type of motivation are sometimes

distinguished: Instrumental motivation which refers to investing effort on learning to attain

study proposes, e.g., passing an exam or passing job interview and integrative motivation

which stands for learning a language in order to communicate with people and integrate in the

target-language culture (Ur, 1996). Another important distinction is set between intrinsic

motivation (the eagerness to learn for its sake) and extrinsic motivation (derived from external

incentives). Ur (1996) contends that these types of motivation are possibly more useful for

teachers. Therefore, teacher’s responsibility in motivating students is crucial. The more

motivated the learners are the better their learning process will be (Ur, ibid).

In the 1970’s, there has been a shift of emphasis from intrinsic motivation to extrinsic

motivation as language was related more to its social manifestation, its utilitarian factors

became clear. However, in recent literature Jordan, et al. (2008) put that “learners are

motivated by factors which can be partly extrinsic and partly intrinsic” (p.158). Consequently,

what happens inside the classroom caught more attention as Ur (ibid) sees that intrinsic and

extrinsic motivation play an important role in classroom motivation. Teachers methods,

activities and their perception of their success or failure (Harmer, 2007) are motivational

factors that teachers usually focus on to sustain motivation. To put it another way, teachers are

responsible for arousing interest in the tasks handled in the classroom, especially for example

when “the degree of involvement and enthusiasm aroused by a game or simulation in a

particular group of students is extremely difficult for the teacher to predict” (Kerr, 1977, p. 6).

70

Kumaravadivelu (2006) puts that innovative classroom activities (such as games, role

plays, and scenarios) aimed at creating and sustaining learner’s motivation. As simulations are

self-generated and involving, motivation raises in participants’ behaviour (Harmer, ibid).

Jones (1982) claims that motivation is inherent in the duties, responsibilities and the

circumstances of the event as simulations involve “clear goals but require students to solve

problems, avoid traps, or overcome obstacles in order to reach the goals” (Brophy, 2004, p.

197). The signs of motivation; the enjoyment, pleasure, and excitement are seen when the

participants taste the delight of solving a problem or making an effective decision. Supporting

the last point, Harmer (ibid) says that “if students feel they have some influence over what is

happening, rather than always being told exactly what to do, they are often more motivated”

(p. 21). Furthermore, the social construction of learning in simulations provides rich

cooperative learning environment and offers potential motivational benefits to students as,

according to Brophy (2004), they respond directly to students’ relatedness needs. Noteworthy,

the interaction that is provided in the simulations enhances the intrinsic motivation (Brophy,

ibid) because “personal delight in solving a problem is mostly intrinsic.” (Jordan, et al. 2008,

p. 158)

On instructional basis, Jones (1982) and Harmer (2007) mention an important benefit of

the simulation which is breaking down the common classroom pattern student-teacher

interaction to be student-student interaction and hence the teacher becomes the controller who

facilitates and monitors the learning process, while the students become active participants

responsible for their own learning and consequently a wider range of language skills will be

included in the learners’ repertoire. This orientation will exert more confidence, natural self-

generated communications, and a sense of security as participants apply decision-making

skills and solve situation-based problems in a controlled environment without terrifying by

the consequences. Simulations, additionally, have long term impact as participants remember

71

“what they tried to communicate, how they tried to do it and what happened as a result”

(Jones, ibid, p. 9) even years after the simulation. This fact may well be enough reason to

make learners reach their learning expansions. Ur (1996) states that “listening activities based

on simulated real-life situations are likely to be more motivating and interesting to do than

contrived text book comprehension exercises” (p.107). Furthermore, Herbert and Sturtridge

(1979) put that participants are highly motivated when they use English as an instrument for

academic purposes, as they appreciate the immediate transference of this experience to an

academic situation conducted in English.

2.4.5 The Use of Authentic Video in Simulation

Since the first phase for preparing simulation is providing the basic input information

needed to operate effectively in simulation, the most useful means should be used to get this

information across is video. Multimedia seems to be the most effective, vital and interesting

way for information transmission. Because listening comprehension, a significant skill in

foreign language development, is one of the skills that teachers use in the input information

provision of the simulation, the first phase of simulation can take place in the classroom or

language laboratory (Herbert & Sturtridge, 1979, p.10).

In the absence of any technological tools that exist today, scholars in the past believe

that the creation of the generalized context visually in the classroom is prerequisite. Language

learner tends to use materials that are supplemented by visual clues that provide setting

information, real spoken language and the mechanisms of interaction, (Willis, 1983, p. 33)

because for a long time, video supported the comprehensible input hypotheses (Krashen,

1985) as it is an open-window for the foreign culture, “a stimulus or input … can be used for

discussions, for writing assignments, as an input for projects or the study of other subjects”

(Sherman, 2003, p. 3). Video is used to teach how to use the language communicatively and

for the sake of comprehension and retention of spoken discourse. Video also teaches students

72

places, people, and behaviour that help students constitute the experience of using the English

language. Consequently, “because of the moving visual component that video is a popular aid

in the language classroom” (Willis, ibid, p.30).

The video is an engaging tool in the classroom as it allows students to step inside the

context of language use. Sherman (ibid) puts that the visual cues of the videos provide

“excite… interest in the meaning of the words” (p.2) besides the concept of understanding and

enjoying the real aspects the video provides, makes the video powerful tool in the classroom

(Sherman, ibid). “Video is richer than audio” Harmer (2007) says, as the visual cues support

meaning by the background information they provide. Thus, using video in the language

teaching is beneficial as it satisfies students’ needs to access the world English language

media (Sherman, 2003). Media, then, can reinforce the direct relationship between the

language classroom and the outside world. Sherman (ibid) stresses authenticity that video

brings in terms of accent, vocabulary, syntax, and discourses, in other words matches each

genre to its structure. Nevertheless, video is less useful if students are drawn by the visual

senses and hence pay little attention to hearing. (Harmer, 2007)

Despite the fact that, in the continual effort to improve the teaching of foreign

languages, textbook authors and their publishers are now urging teachers to include video in

the curriculum, because Videotapes permit students to hear native speakers interacting in

everyday conversational situations and to practice important linguistic structures and video's

visual dimension motivate students to want to learn the foreign language (Herron et al., 1995,

p. 775). However, its integration in the language classroom is not easy because the teacher

according to Harmer (ibid) should sustain the students’ motivation by choosing the video that

is relevant to students’ level and interest. Accordingly, he (ibid) provides procedures for using

the video in the classroom: playing the video without sound, students guess first from what

they see what the characters are saying. This procedure allows the teacher to assess the

73

students’ capacity of inferring, playing the audio without picture: students listen to the audio

and then try to guess the contextual factors of the language characters are using. This way of

using video draws the students’ attention to the importance of context to language use. At the

end the teachers plays the audio with the visual image, freeze frame: the teachers pauses the

video at a given time and ask his students to predict what will happen next, and dividing the

class in half: half of the class face the screen, conversely the other half face the wall. The

‘screen’ half describes the visual image to the ‘wall’ half.

A research held by MacKnight in 1981 revealed that “teachers like video because they

believe it motivates students, bringing real life into the classroom, contextualizing language

naturally, enabling students to experience authentic language in a controlled environment” (as

cited in Willis, 1983, p. 30). All these benefits of video go into line with the characteristics of

simulations, whereby video and simulation can be a complementary tool for each other as

video plays a role in the provision of input for the realization of the simulation or video

recording of the simulation for later assessment, while the simulation in turn can deprive the

learners of the passive role they attain after watching the video by immersing them in active

roles when they interact with authentic language situations in the simulation.

2.4.6 Simulation as Language Assessment

Simulations are considered as real-life or target tasks and can serve as a tool for

assessment. Luoma (2004) sees that the real aspect that simulation brings makes it a

replication of non-test language use in the assessment situation. Littlejohn (1990, p. 125)

suggests that “the use of simulations as a testing device is ... an important development since

it should be possible to replicate the situations in which learners will have to use the

language.” He also puts that this kind of replication allows the shift of vision from the

language product to the process which engenders language. Thus, the language use has a

direct impact on the situation assessment as “simulations will show us how the student

74

actually performs” (Littlejohn, ibid, p. 128). The question then which needs to be asked is: on

what basis the learner would be assessed? In other words would he be assessed on how might

he do in a real setting, or in the replicated situation? In this respect, McNamara (1996)

distinguishes between strong performance testing which replicates the real-life language-use

event and uses real-world criteria for judging task success, and weak performance test that

accounts having enough language ability suffice for task success (as cited in Luoma, 2004, pp.

40-41). However, the pervasive test type in most language tests follow the weak performance

testing because the student even in simulation testing consider himself as a learner more than

language user in real-life situation according to Luoma (ibid).

2.5 Simulation Discourse Analysis

Generally speaking, simulation discourse analysis happens during the debriefing phase

as announced by Jones (1982). He says that the analysis may take two different forms

addressing; (1) the grammatical efficiency and (2) functional effectiveness.

2.5.1 Grammatical Analysis

The grammatical analysis focuses on the grammatical errors. Jones (ibid) put that the

analysis concentrated itself on their type and their frequency. This analysis according to him

serves to constitute a student profile that includes what is there and what is missing in his

linguistic competence. The first step in this analysis is to highlight these errors. The example

below shows how to conduct the first step (taken from Jones, 1982, p.50, a part belongs to the

transcript from a West German school where five children-who have had six years of English-

taking, part in Jones’s simulation ‘Space Crash’).

Andro: the information is: Dyans are friendly and

they will show us the way to the radio station and there

75

we find food and water. But Dyans are not drinking

water – they need only a kind of dry grass and they never

move away from grassy areas.

Erid: Yes. Betelg?

Betelg: We are on a flat land. I have a compass and

– er – can choose our way, but we can’t go – em –

diagonal on Dy. We must be careful that we do not go in

circles and – em – and we can …

Cassi: I know how long we can stay without water.

That’s three days, and – er- on Dy the valleys are not

usually – usually near hills – em – we‘re – er – only – nee

– the only other water on Dy is at the radio station –er –

that we can see the radio station – em – mast from the

hill if we climb on them. And I’ve also the information

that – em – the sand is dangerous, but I don’t know why

and – er – perhaps the story is untrue.

we would find

do not drink

diagonally

go or live or survive

omit, or and

hills

climb up them or climb

them

The step after underlying grammatical errors is categorising them for example Andro’s errors

‘we find’ and ‘are not drinking’ indicates a problem with tenses. (Jones, 1982, p. 51)

2.5.2 Functional Analysis

The functional analysis, of the simulation discourse, deals with how much participants

are able to communicate meaning in context. The important factors, Jones (ibid) mentioned,

that should be considered to achieve this analysis is ‘cohesion’ of the discourse, in other

words “what it is that the participants are trying to communicate” (p.52) in relation to the

context in which language is used. The re-analysis of the above transcript revealed the

following conclusions: Andro announces informational category of discourse when he said

76

‘the information is…’, but failed to provide full information that they have no food or water

and that they have nothing to carry water in (he violated Grice’s (1975) quantity maxim).

Additionally, Erid’s statement, ‘yes Betelg’, conveys the functional meaning ‘I am in charge.

Thank you, Andro, for your contribution. I assume you have finished. It is now your turn,

Betelg. You may begin’ as he decides to organise the discussion. Jones says also that

functional analysis can be categorised according to its interest or worth to be addressed in the

future lessons. He adds that each type of discourse has its own patterns of functional use,

besides, the analysis of simulation discourse is different from ordinary classroom talk where

talk is ruled by what is appropriate to the teacher (the learner says what the teacher wishes

him to say) rather than what contributes usefully to the discussion (p.57). According to Jones

(ibid), the two types of analysis “are not mutually exclusive” as they can be both done on the

same transcript (p.58).

2.6 Researches Related to Simulation Activities

Blank (1985) has researched the effectiveness of role playing, case studies, and

simulation games in teaching Agricultural Economics. His research aimed at assessing the

impact of introducing these techniques into undergraduate courses. The results showed that

simulation games allowed a diversity of abilities when used as a teaching aid more than the

other techniques. In more details the research reported the following conclusions:

- Role playing only helps giving students better understanding of the decision-making

environment.

- Case studies can only present detailed information about situations, thus they are useful

when the instructor’s aim is to present large amounts of technical data.

- However, simulation games give students both repeated exposure to the decision-making

environment and the opportunity to deal with large amount of detailed information.

77

Davis (1996) has implemented simulation called "Let's Do Business" for six months in

an attempt to assess the effectiveness of simulation as an ELT technique at a business college

in Tokyo, Japan. Davis allowed the participants to encounter gradually the complexity of

simulation as he started with skits to more involved productions, that is allowing the

participants and himself to understand the working manner of simulation and acknowledge

clearly its impact on language learning and teaching. The findings strongly supported that

once students had tasted the benefits of simulation, their desires to learn improved

considerably.

Tompkins (1998) attempted to assess the effectiveness of role playing/simulation in

ELT. The findings reported the fact that when the role playing/simulation techniques are

employed, they should be integrated with other language learning activities. If this integration

takes place in the classroom, students as well as teachers will be engaged in extremely

rewarding experience.

Silvia (2009) surveyed 198 students enrolled in the four sections of the urban policy

course during the fall 2009 semester; three instructors in four sections of an urban policy

course at a large public University in the Midwest used the simulation Camelot: A Role-

Playing Simulation for Political Decision Making (adopted from Woodworth et al., 2005).

The results of the survey indicated that most of the students had a favourable opinion of the

simulation’s impact on their higher-level learning. This conclusion has been validated by the

following findings:

- Simulation helped them apply the concepts learned in class.

- Simulation helped them draw conclusions and compare different viewpoints (students were

more willing to think critically about what is being discussed).

- The simulation also proved to give students the opportunity to learn about themselves and

others.

78

- The simulation increased the student’s self-awareness and made them sensitive to the

perspectives of others.

- The simulation also had a significant impact on helping the students learn to want to learn

more. (pp. 409-413)

Mañeru et al. (2011) have studied the effect of simulation activities on bridging the gap

between universities and the health care (workplace).The research was conducted in the

Medical Simulation Center in Spain where medical school students developed multiple

activities from their first year of medical studies in the course ―Initiation in Clinical

Procedures. The research concluded that in simulator scenarios, the highest levels of quality

and training effectiveness can be achieved. In other words “learning by simulation makes it

easier for medical students to enter the work place with better preparation and adjustment.”

(p.257)

Madsa (2012) has conducted an extended experience of motivating students’ speaking

skill through simulation in English for specific purpose class in Rattaphum College Language

Centre. The data have been collected through class observation, teaching journal, document

collection, questionnaire and interview and the results have been analysed qualitatively. The

findings of this research have promoted the motivational effect of simulation on students’

behaviour. The researcher summarised them as follows:

1. Students are highly motivated with this approach. It is shown from their work on

some assignments and task given with good results.

2. Students are keen on attending the class as they feel that they get enough practice as

well as theory.

3. Students state that their English is improved in some ways.

4. Students feel more confidence.

5. Students state that the lecturer give good assistant during the class.

79

6. Students can achieve their expectation in learning English.

7. Students state that the equipment provided in class is very useful easy to use.

8. Students sate that this simulation approach can be continued with some improvement.

Angelini (2014) designed two sessions that delved into human rights by means of a

simulation and collaborative learning to 35 prospective teachers at the international week at

University College South Denmark. The aim of the study was to inspect the rate of

engagement of participants into reading about human rights and environmental issues through

a simulation and debating possible solutions to several social problems. The qualitative

analysis revealed that most participants agreed on the use of simulations due to an added

value: social interaction and exchange of ideas openly, valued working in team, and they were

satisfied with the experience of learning during the simulation.

Conclusion

The urge to create rich communicative realistic environment in the classroom, where

students actively become part of the world outside the classroom, develop students’

communicative competence by involving them in functional language use. It generates

student-student relationship by making them take control of their learning; thus be responsible

for its outcomes, and has mapped the terrain for simulations to be part of the EFL classroom.

As a result, simulations changed the stereotyped picture of the EFL classroom under the

revolutionary reformulation of the communicative language teaching. The review presented in

this chapter stresses the fact that simulations’ aim is to help EFL learners improve their

communicative ability in naturalistic context of learning; accordingly, it has taken the line that

simulations should be implemented in the EFL classrooms.

CHAPTER THREE:

COMMUNICATION IN ACADEMIC CONTEXT: CLASSROOM FOCUS

Introduction 80

3.1 English for Academic Purposes (EAP) 80

3.1.1 Communication for Academic Purposes 82

3.1.1.1 Verbal communication 83

3.1.1.2 Nonverbal communication 83

3.1.2 Communication in Academic Discourse and Style 84

3.1.3 Communication in the Language Classroom 88

3.1.3.1 Classroom Instruction 88

3.1.3.2 Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) 90

3.1.3.2.1 Language Theory 90

3.1.3.2.2 CLT: Moving from ‘Learning That’ to ‘Learning How’ 91

3.1.3.3 Pedagogical Implications of Communicative Language Ability 94

3.1.3.4 The Inclusion of Real Communication in the Classroom 97

3.1.3.4.1 Authenticity for Genuine Communication 98

3.1.3.5 EAP Communicative Methodology 100

3.1.3.5.1 Communication and the EAP Learner’s Characteristics 102

3.1.3.5.2 Learner-centered Communicative Instruction 103

3.1.3.5.3 The Role of the Teacher in Classroom 104

3.1.3.5.4 The Role of the Learner in Classroom 106

3.1.3.6 Classroom Interaction 108

3.1.3.7 Cooperative and Collaborative Learning 110

3.1.3.8 Task-based Communication 112

3.1.3.9 Communicative Activities 113

3.1.3.9.1 Functional Communicational Activities 116

3.1.3.9.2 Social Interaction Activities 117

Conclusion 118

80

Chapter Three: Communication in Academic Context:

Classroom Focus

Introduction

College English teaching has been the focus of many teachers and thus effective

communication which plays a vital role in universities. In a nutshell, communication has been

called the key concept of academic disciplines of the university. For the purpose of this study,

this chapter examines the working mechanism of classroom communication in EAP context.

The practical definition of communication, in relation to EAP discourse and style, builds on

multidimensional vision of its implications in the classroom; consequently Communicative

Language Teaching (CLT) as the blanket term which involves communicative teaching

methodology, learner-centered approach, collaborative learning, task–based communication

and communicative activities, is essentially the focal point of concern.

3.1 English for Academic Purposes (EAP)

In order to captivate the notion of communication in academic context, it is important to

cast light on English for academic purposes (EAP) and its impact on communication. EAP

has been emerged from the larger field of English for Specific Purposes (ESP) and it has two

subdivisions: English for General Academic Purposes (EGAP) and English for Specific

Academic Purposes (ESAP) (described by Blue (1988a) as cited in Jordan, 1997, pp. 4-5).

Hyland and Hamp-lyons (2002) put that English for Academic Purposes refers to language

research and instruction that focuses on the specific communicative needs and practices of

particular groups in academic contexts. Thus, EAP means equipping students with the

communicative skills to participate in particular academic contexts. Worth to note that one of

the strongest links between EAP and ESP is the focus on needs analysis as a systematic way

of identifying the specific sets of skills, texts, linguistic forms and communicative practices

that a particular group of learners must acquire (Dudley-Evans & St. John, 1998). However,

81

needs analysis should exceed the emphasis on students’ needs that may have great influence

on “the kind of teaching and learning that takes place” (Jordan, 1997, p. 22) to include the

mutual influence of the academic context on the students’ needs as EAP “seeks to provide

insights into the structures and meanings of academic texts, into the demands placed by

academic contexts on communicative behaviours, and into the pedagogic practices by which

these behaviours can be developed” (Hyland & Hamp-lyons, 2002, p. 3). For thorough

understanding of EAP, it is crucial to examine the context and purposes to use EAP. The

contexts in which EAP might be involved to reach academic literacy vary according to

different settings and circumstances; they can be English–speaking context (e.g., UK, Ireland,

USA, etc.), a context where English is used as foreign language (e.g., Germany, Finland, etc.)

or is used as second language (e.g., India). Whereas, the purposes, that student may need EAP

for, are higher education studies or pre-departure courses before studying abroad (Jordan,

ibid, p. 2).

Worth mentioning, in 1974 the term ‘English for Academic Purposes’ appears to be

“concerned with those communication skills in English which are required for study purposes

in formal education systems” according to ETIC (1975) (as cited in Jordan, ibid, p.1).

Consequently, communication in academic context should concentrate on communication

skills that lead to educational efficacy. The communication instruction then should be based

on “an understanding of the cognitive, social and linguistic demands of specific academic

disciplines.” (Hyland and Hamp-lyons, ibid, p. 2); further to that, global job market is also

one of the main facets that the pedagogical instructional framework at universities is

centralized on, to put it another way, EAP tries to develop the competence of graduates at the

university to be adequately effective in real life situations, by applying the appropriate

techniques, procedures and methods.

82

3.1.1 Communication for Academic Purposes

Before we dive into the foreground of communication in academic context, it is

important to shed light over what the word ‘communication’ means. Communication is

defined as an aspect of human behaviour according to Rai (2010). It is a part of everything

we do. A detailed definition of communication implies “the transmission of information and

meaning from one individual or group to another” (Rai, ibid, p.6). To put it another way, it is

bridging the information gap between two (or more) people (Morrow, 1981, p.62). The

process of communication is interactive and can be achieved only through sharing mutual

influence between the speaker and listener, that is to say both the receiver and the sender

understand the same meaning transmitted. The mutual relationship reveals in the listeners

response which depends on the aim stated by the speaker all the time he is speaking (Morrow,

ibid). To sum up, human communication is according to Barker and Roach Gaut (2002):

- Action meaning behaviour that involves verbal and nonverbal symbols that shape,

reinforce, or change one another’s behaviour.

- Communication is a tool for satisfying needs and hence to survive.

- Communication is purposeful: people communicate for a reason.

- Communication is mutually influencing: communication is an event where participants

share the communication process and influence one another in the interaction

- Communication is structure: can be either formal or informal.

- Communication systems evolve: the communication system changes immediately or

over time. (pp. 13-18)

Rai (ibid) provides seven elements necessary for the communication to take place: (1)

the sender, who initiates the process, (2) encodes (3) the message, which has a (4) purpose,

into symbols through (5) medium or channel and receives a response from (6) the receiver

that is called (7) feedback about the effectiveness of the communication. Worth noting,

83

Barker and Roach Gaut (2002) shed light on important dimensions of communication; verbal

and non-verbal symbols that are used to achieve the purpose of communication.

3.1.1.1 Verbal communication

Verbal communication is the behaviour that originates in the form of words (Baker and

Gaut, ibid, p. 11). Rai (2010) puts that verbal communication involves the four language

skills: speaking, writing, reading, as well as listening. While others think that verbal

communication is only manifested in speaking and hearing (Widdowson, 1978). For an

effective verbal communication, one needs to have “a rich vocabulary, command of a variety

of sentence structures, clarity in thinking, and focus on the audience are necessary” (Rai, ibid,

p.13). Furthermore, Rai (ibid) points out that verbal communication is always accompanied

by non-verbal communication.

3.1.1.2 Nonverbal communication

Communicative event is incomplete without the paralinguistic devices and features.

Widdowson (1978) puts that speaking and listening involve verbal communication while the

appropriate labels are saying and hearing that exceeds the spoken language to include the non-

verbal elements (p.73). Rai (ibid) puts that “non-verbal communication is mostly involuntary

and unconscious and difficult to control” (p. 16) and it “occurs mainly through visual symbols

and auditory symbols” (p.17). The non-verbal elements which Widdowson (ibid) calls

paralinguistic devices, according to Baker and Gaut (2002) and Rai (ibid) include facial

expressions, tone of voice, gestures, body movement, eye contact, appearance, and

paralanguage.

When speaking about communication in academic context, it is important to refer to the

fact that the systematic study of communication started in college and universities. Morreale

et al. (2000) attest that “the communication discipline should be viewed as central on college

84

campuses” (p.2). In line with this fact, Gizir and Simsek (2005) have addressed in their study

the common perspectives on organisational communication which they adopted from Krone et

al. (1989). They focused on communication patterns that are most likely to occur in university

context since it represents very complex organism where complex input is negotiated between

different operating units such as faculty, school, college, chair, institute, and departments. The

first perspective they adopted, is the mechanistic perspective which “emphasizes the channels

that connect communicators”, the psychological perspective “deals with how characteristics

of individuals affect their communication”, interpretive perspective in which “organisational

communication is composed of patterns of coordinated behaviours that have the capacity to

create, maintain, and dissolve organizations” and the system-interaction perspective which

leads to “concentrating on external behaviours as the fundamental units of analysis” (p. 200).

For our aim in this study, we will focus attention on perspectives of communication in the

classroom which represents the lowest organism at the university, because the classroom

context involves complex organisms of communication that should be cast light on to have

direct influence on the higher levels of organizational communication which is found between

faculties, institutions, and departments.

3.1.2 Communication in Academic Discourse and Style

Speaking about communication discourse and style draws attention to English for

Specific Academic Purposes (ESAP) as the latter is characterised by different registers,

discourses and genres. Register analysis in 1960’s focused its arena on tense frequencies and

vocabulary frequencies that characterise grammar register and lexicons of different subjects

(ESP), Jordan (1997) puts. In a nutshell the analysis was superficial as it concerns itself with

word and sentence level.

85

In 1970’s, the analysis went beyond word and sentence level, this has led to a different

approach to analysis – discourse analysis. This analysis, according to Jordan (1997), concerns

itself with “describing the language and its structure that is used in speech or text that is

longer than a sentence, e.g., conversation, paragraphs, complete texts” (p.229). He (ibid) adds

discourse analysis counts for the effect of communicative contexts on language use, for

example, in social transactions, the relationship between the speakers and listeners. Of the

same account, choice of verb tenses or other grammatical features affect the structure of the

discourse, Jordan clarifies. Relatedly, Grimshaw (2003) says that discourse analysis is related

to how words “can do things like promise or threaten, and perhaps thus ‘cause’ social

outcomes” (p.29). It is clear then the mutual influence that word choice and social context

share. Jordan (ibid) continues saying that cohesion, discourse markers or cohesive devices,

that are employed, fall in the realm of discourse analysis. Grimshaw (ibid) emphasized an

important notion in discourse analysis – discourse processes – rather than careful

measurements of processes. In the same vein, Jordan (ibid) highlights the recurring patterns

and text organisation in the analysis. Grimshaw (ibid) illustrated this by the following

example: in the analysis of conflict talk, the focus is on how “sequencing, interruption,

amplitude, and the tune, and ... how … termination is signalled” (adopted from Bailey, 1983,

as cited in Grimshaw, ibid, p. 30), in other words, this illustration is what Jordan puts as

problem-solution pattern which entails situation, problem, response, and evaluation. Jordan

accentuates the fact that this pattern is highly relevant for academic texts (p.230). Basically,

Jordan and Grimshaw agree on the importance of discourse/context of situation in the analysis

of the discourse. Noteworthy, college undergraduates are aware of the rules about discourse

and a context, as Grimshaw (ibid) says. Accordingly, the context of situation for discourse

analysis is “that of quasi-voluntary participation in experiments on production, perception,

interpretation, recall, and so on of discourse variables (Grimshaw, ibid, p.36). To go into line

86

with the present study aim, conversation discourse analysis should be primary site of this

review. Consequently, Schober and Brennan (2003) emphasize the unique structure of this

discourse as it is the first referent, which comes to mind, to language use and communication.

Schober and Brennan (ibid) distinguish this discourse by its unique face-to face interactive

nature that includes visible, audible participants who can use paralinguistic cues as well as

speech in instantaneous manner; as a result this type of discourse is evanescent. Notably,

what is typical to conversation discourse is that “the addressees can give speakers immediate

feedback. (p.125). (for more details about features of spoken discourse, see Chapter One, Sub-

section1.1.4 Speaking in Real Time, p. 16)

In 1980’s and 1990’s, genre analysis appeared to analyse the different varieties of

discourse such conversation, lecture, and so on (Grimshaw, 2003). Dudley-Evans (1987)

accentuates the fact that the difference between discourse and genre analysis is that the latter

is concerned with individual texts, while the former is interested in the common features

between all texts (as cited in Jordan, 1997, p.213). Relatedly, Grimshaw (ibid) asserts that

discourse types can be similar in some ways and can be also called ‘subgenres’. As far as this

study is concerned, studying spoken language genres is the utmost concern. According to

Jordan (ibid) “spoken language has received much less attention than written” (p.235) as only

seminars, introductions to lectures, plenary lectures are the first spoken discourses that caught

the attention of genre analysts, at the beginning.

Communication is taught not only on the basis of students’ needs only, but it exceeds to

the ability to distinguish between a formal/academic style and an informal one, Jordan (ibid)

puts. To put it another way, Jordan says that students need to know what style is more

appropriate, that is, they have to understand what is acceptable in spoken language and not

appropriate in written. Jordan (ibid) provided set of lexical characteristics of spoken

discourses that should be avoided in written ones:

87

- Contractions (e.g. it’s, hasn’t)

- Many phrasal phrases (e.g. look into, find out)

- Colloquialism/ slang (e.g. you know, lots, kid)

- Personal pronouns (e.g. I, you)

- Vagueness in word choice (e.g. thing) (p.245)

Exceeding the ability to differentiate between academic discourses, registers and styles,

Jordan (1997) stresses study skills which are a dispensable reference in EAP working

definition. In essence, students do not use the English language in one subject, one discourse

or one style; however, they use it in all variety of subjects which entail the requirement of

different skills which students use for study purposes. Jordan (ibid) classifies these skills into

receptive and productive skills without denying their possible mutual use, for example note-

taking is used in reading and listening and then the notes taken are used in speaking

(comments in seminar) and writing (an essay). To enlarge the range of the study skills upon

shortly, the author mentions the skills which might be used in spoken and written discourses

as well as for listening comprehension: asking questions, answering questions, giving oral

presentation, initiating comments, giving reasons, interrupting, verbalizing data, conducting

interview, describing, justifying, note-taking, scanning, skimming, analyzing data (graphs and

diagrams, etc.), collating information, planning, writing drafts, revising, using quotations,

footnotes and bibliography, summarizing, and paraphrasing. Among all the study skills used

in EAP discourse, this study is interested in the following skills: note-taking, asking questions

for repetition, clarification and information, especially in the listening phase which precedes

and follows the simulation activities. Additionally, agreeing, disagreeing, starting a point of

view, explaining, interrupting, persuading, commenting, and stating criticism are the most

study skills relied on in the study, especially in the spoken discourse when communication

takes place in the classroom.

88

3.1.3 Communication in the Language Classroom

The focus on communication in the classroom brings oral communication to the top

concerns of investigation because the communication which takes place in the classroom,

including the teacher with his students and students with each other, happens orally. Morreale

et al. (2000) contend that “competence in oral communication - in speaking and listening - is

prerequisite to students' academic, personal, and professional success in life” (p.1).

Furthermore, they say that beyond the limits of school, the social construction of human being

which depends on adjusting, participating and maintaining the interpersonal relationships is

developed due to oral communication competence (p.2). Knowing that students in the

classroom, as narrower version of society, are also required to adjust, participate and maintain

the interpersonal relationships to achieve effective communication, communication seems to

reinforce its place and importance in the classroom. To prove this importance, Morreale et al.

(ibid) provide seven traits to explain the relationship between communication education and

the educational enterprise improvement. As far as this study is concerned, the first two traits

are highlighted, namely:

- Communication education enhances classroom instruction.

- Communication is the key to successful collaboration in the educational environment. (p.3)

3.1.3.1 Classroom Instruction

Lee (2000) describes the classroom communication structure as having three main

stages: expression, interpretation and negotiation of meaning (p. 101). This construction of

classroom communication reveals the interactive nature of the communication enrolled in the

classroom. An important concern of teachers as well as learners is the manifestation of

communication in the classroom, to put it another way how the components of

communicative competence mentioned in the first chapter are realized to achieve the main

event in the classroom. The famous communicative model, Canale and Swain’s model (1980),

89

was synthesised by Bachman (1990) that took into account not only what knowledge learners

possess but also how to act on that knowledge.

Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) is a broad approach that has become a term

for methods and curricula that embrace both the goals and the processes of classroom

learning, for teaching practice that views competence in terms of social interaction and looks

out for further language acquisition research to account for its development (Savignon, 1991,

p. 263). Noteworthy, the communicative language ability we want to develop in second

language learners is the communicative language ability native speakers of the ‘second

language’ have” (Lee, 2000, p.99).

However, many researches according to Ellis (1997) failed to account for any influence

of classroom communication and language acquisition, except for one which considers the

illocutionary act students use when interacting. As “communication abilities embrace

linguistic skills but not the reverse” (Widdowson, 1978, p. 67), the illocutionary force of

communication allows students to discover the linguistic options to achieve it. Despite this

fact, Ellis (ibid) believes that the communicative environment in the classroom my not lead to

successful grammar acquisition, however, even if learners fail to acquire the grammatical

features, they develop discourse and strategic competence in such classroom. The failure,

according to him, is learner-related as “may be unable to avoid the transfer of L1 features in

their interlanguage …They may lack access to Universal Grammar and so have to fall back on

general strategies of learning” (p. 53).

Another account seems to consider a direct influence of communication genres on

classroom communication and thus language acquisition as it is stated in Baker and Gaut’s

(2002) statement “both formal and informal communication structure have a significant

impact on the communication dynamics of a college classroom” (p. 18).Speaking about

90

classroom instruction for effective communication, the teaching approach should be the focal

point of attention. As it has been already mentioned, CLT is the endeavour to reach effective

communication in the classroom through concentrating efforts on developing communicative

competence.

3.1.3.2 Communicative Language Teaching (CLT)

For over three decades, Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) has been perceived

as the most prevailing instructional framework in foreign language teaching and learning

programs. It has started dating from 1960’s in Europe as a reaction to traditional dogmas in

the language teaching and learning as older methods Audiolingualism in North America and

situational approach in the United Kingdom fell out of fashion. As any other approach, CLT

has formulated its own tenets and principles which foreground its understanding of the

language and language use.

3.1.3.2.1 Language Theory

According to Brown (2001) what distinguishes CLT from the traditional language

teaching methodologies is its conception of communicative competence, rather than linguistic

competence, as the primary goal of language learning and teaching. “While grammatical

competence was prerequisite to produce grammatically correct sentences, attention shifted to

the knowledge and skills needed to use grammar and other aspects of language appropriately

for different communicative purposes such as making requests, giving advice, making

suggestions, describing wishes and needs, and so on” (Richards, 2006, p.9). Due to the

influence of communicative language teaching, it has become widely accepted that

communicative competence should be the goal of language education, mainly, classroom

practice.

91

The communicative approach to language teaching starts from the theory of language as

communication. Hence, it is mainly based on a prevalent set of beliefs about the nature of

language, the language within its social context and the language learning. Ma (2009) lays the

assumptions that conceptualize CLT in the following quote.

Assumptions in CLT are that language is social behavior, which concerns conveyance

of meaning, i.e. the grammar of a language is a means of organizing meaning; language

is about making texts, connected discourse (not sentences in isolation); knowing a

language means knowing the grammatical rules and knowing the rules and conventions

of the speech community; language is not seen as comprised of four skills

(reading/writing/speaking/listening), but of various abilities. (p. 40)

3.1.3.2.2 CLT: Moving from ‘Learning That’ to ‘Learning How’

Traditionally, before 1970’s, the language instruction was directed towards developing

learners’ ability to purely manipulate the linguistic structures accurately, in other words,

developing learners’ language or linguistic competence. Grammar was at the core of language

teaching at that time. By the late 1960’s, CLT emerged to replace traditional language

teaching methods as mentioned earlier. With the emergence of communicative language

teaching, new instructional approach has revealed. A new shift to teaching learners’ how to

use language appropriately in real communication took place as Nunan (1989) explains it as

moving from “learning that” to “knowing how”. Consequently, a theoretical concept labelled

communicative approach appeared to mean being able to use what a learner knows effectively

and appropriately in the target speech community.

As any other prevailing approach in a given era, CLT approach has been developing

since the late 1970’s and received a lot of renewing frameworks. The early 1990’s witnessed a

raising dissatisfaction of some content and pedagogic aspects of the communicative approach

92

to language teaching namely about the place of grammar in CLT which was uncertain then

(Celce-Murcia, et al., 1997, Nunan, 1989). According to Nunan (ibid) this dissatisfaction

stems its roots from the following questions “What do we do with our more formal

approaches to specification of structures and skills? Can they be found a place in CLT?”

Hymes (1972) finds a solution for these problems by asserting “There are rules of use without

which the rules of grammar would be useless” (p. 275). Nevertheless, Hymes’s

conceptualisation of the term communicative competence has provided no basis for

undoubting the pedagogical implementation of this competence in relation to linguistic

competence.

Later, in 1990’s it was widely recommended to create a balance between grammatical

correctness and communication appropriateness. The indirect communicative approach

shifted to direct approach. In other words, there was a shift from conversation competence-

based approach to micro skills, process and strategies oriented approach (Richards, 1990, pp.

76-77). This approach to communicative teaching starts to account for the grammatical

competence. Nunan (1989) confirms this view by saying that in order to communicate

effectively grammar is necessary. Besides, Celce-Murcia et al. (1997) contend “making

learners aware of structural regularities and formal properties of the target language will

greatly increase the rate of language attainment” (p.145). Pedagogical research has

investigated deeply the way teachers raise their learners’ awareness towards grammar. In

weak or shallow-end CLT, grammar is still the core goal of the syllabus, although it is often

“dressed up in functional labels: asking the way, talking about yourself, making future plans,

etc.” On the other hand, the strong version, which is referred to as deep-end CLT, rejected

explicit grammar instruction and instead proposed a syllabus of tasks (Thornbury, 2000, p.

22). Consequently, linguistic competence was perceived to be learned as a result of learners’

engagement in communicative activities. (Celce-Murcia, et al., ibid, p. 145)

93

Therefore, communicative competence includes Chomsky’s linguistic competence,

however, with fractional difference: the inclusion of linguistic features that may transmit

social messages as well as referential meanings in social context rather than describing those

features in terms of construction and combination in linguistic context. Littlewood (1981)

argues that “it is not sufficient on its own to account for how language is used as a means of

communication” (p.1). Thereby, to say that a person knows a language, he or she must know

“when to speak, when not, (...) what to talk about with whom, when, where, in what manner”

(Hymes, 1972, p. 277), in addition to how to construct grammatically correct sentences. In

other words, speech context in which actual language use takes place should be considered by

any language user to interpret the right meaning as grammatical and functional meanings may

not be compatible most of times (Larsen-Freeman, 2000, p. 126). Littlewood (1981) illustrates

the contradiction between linguistic forms and function with a simple sentence “Why don’t

you close the door?” From a linguistic perspective it is an interrogative, however, from

functional viewpoint, it may function as a question, a command or a complaint (p. 162). In

sum, “communicative language teaching means little more than an integration of grammatical

and functional teaching” (Richards & Rodgers, 1986, p.66).

In essence, communicative competence is not a matter of knowing rules for the

composition of sentences and being able to employ such rules to assemble expressions from

scratch when occasion requires, Widdowson (1989) puts. It is much more a matter of knowing

pre-assembled patterns, formulaic frameworks, and a kit of rules, so to speak, and being able

to apply the rules to make whatever adjustments are necessary according to contextual

standards (p. 135). According to this claim, learners are supposed to assemble a set of

grammar items and rules in an appropriate way to covey the adequate communication.

Moreover, according to Celce-Murcia, et al. (1997) the retrieval of these preassembled

patterns and rules is “cognitively undemanding” as they come as result of language use.

94

3.1.3.3 Pedagogical Implications of Communicative Language Ability

The shift of language pedagogy came from the changing of education realities in

Europe. The social and political pressures resulted in new language teaching schemata that

promotes a more semantic, more social and more communicative tendency to language

teaching. This tendency included the theory of speech act (Austin, 1962) which offers a much

more comprehensive view of language as communication, which explains how language users

perform speech acts such as requesting, informing, apologizing, and so on. An important

linguistic theory of communication favoured in CLT is Halliday's functional perspective of

language use, “linguistics … is concerned … with the description of speech acts or texts,

since only through the study of language in use are all the functions of language, and therefore

all components of meaning, brought into focus” (Halliday, 1970, p. 145). On the basis of this

theory, D. A. Wilkins (1972) who was from the pioneers who developed the communicative

syllabuses for language teaching, and proposed a functional or communicative definition of

language (as cited in Richards and Rodgers, 1986, p.65). Wilkins according to Richards and

Rodgers (ibid) distinguishes between notional categories of meaning including; concepts such

as time, quantity, sequence, frequency and functional categories of meaning such denials,

requests, complaints, etc. In the same way, Littlewood (1981) supports this theory by claiming

“one of the most characteristic features of communicative language teaching is that it pays

systematic attention to functional as well as structural aspects of language” (p.1). This

tendency towards the inclusion of functional meaning has declared for the inclusion of

language functions in language education; as a result, speech acts, meaning potential and

language functions become part of CLT. It has long been believed by many scholars

(Halliday, 1970, Littlewood, 1981; Savignon, 1991) that organizing language teaching around

categories of language functions best helps students use language for communicative

purposes. Many theorists provided a set of functions that language used to fulfil. Bachman

95

(1990) provides seven functions; ideational: expressing propositions, information or feelings,

manipulative: affecting the world around us, instrumental: getting things done through the use

of speech acts, Regulatory: controlling the behaviour of others, interactional: managing

interpersonal relationships, heuristic: extending our knowledge of the world, imaginative: the

humorous or aesthetic use of language (Bachman, 1990, p.87). While Baker and Gaut (2002)

categorize them into three functions; to label which means referring to entities, acts or persons

in the world be a name, to interact that means to share ideas, emotions and mutual influence

in the communication, and to transmit which refers to the transmission of information

between individuals.

Of equal importance, theory of communicative competence proposed by Hymes (1972)

which incorporates interactional and sociocultural norms caught a considerable attention in

the classroom practices. Widdowson (1978) came years later to present a view of the

relationship between linguistic systems and their communicative values in text and discourse.

He focuses on the communicative acts underlying the ability to use language for different

purposes. An important referent for conceptual views of the communicative nature of

language that seeks to translate this into instructional system, materials, teacher and learner

roles and behaviors, and classroom activities and techniques is the Canale and Swain’s (1980)

model which states incomplete definition of communicative performance; speech event forms

the basis for understanding the rules of language use. This model was further developed in the

Canale’s (1983) model which counts the sociolinguistic component as the appropriateness of

functions, ideas and meanings to context, besides the appropriateness of its formal realization

rather as socio-cultural rules. An additional component appeared in Canale’s model which is

discourse competence which concerns the ability to produce unified written and spoken texts

by means of coherence and cohesion. Strategic competence is no longer perceived, in

Canale’s adaptation, as a support for communication breakdowns, but it is the ability to

96

enhance the effectiveness of communication. Years later, Bachman (1990) refined

communicative competence model. Bachman (ibid) explains the interaction between the

components of the communicative competence in language use. The illocutionary

competence, mentioned in his model, involves the performance of language functions and

speech acts. Noteworthy, in Canale and Swain’s model, grammatical competence and

sociolinguistic competence lead all the components of the communicative competence;

however, Bachman’s model was driven by the strategic competence which controls

communicative performance through:

- Assessing components: identifying knowledge and language competences needed to

achieve the communicative goal.

- Planning the components: retrieving the appropriate information in language

competences and choose channel.

- Executing components: use psychological mechanisms to realize utterance.

The main implication of Celce-Murcia et al. (1995) is the incorporation of non-cognitive

factors in the understanding of the language use and hence, considering the strategic

competence a metacognitive competence. On another facet, Canale (1983) puts that social

meaning is concerned even with the nonverbal behaviour. A clear evidence for the last claim

is the evolution of the models of communicative competence from 1980 to 1995 stated in

detail in chapter one (subsection 1.1.1Theories to the Understanding of the Speaking Act, p.

10). But, it is noteworthy that no “single model that is universally accepted as authoritative”

Richards and Rodgers (1986) put.

Littlewood (1981) accentuates another view of communication language teaching

through emphasising the social meaning (p. 4). Back to CLT principles, communication relies

heavily on the appropriateness of language to a given context. Littlewood (ibid) claims that

the nature of the language is centrally determined by the social situation (p. 5). This claim

97

justifies the account of social factors in language teaching to ensure adequate delivery of

social meaning. Savignon (1991) in turn makes clear that language competence is viewed “in

terms of social interaction” (p. 263). A teacher who values CLT approach will naturally be

drawn to materials that emphasize the language functions and social norms used in a

particular speech community.

3.1.3.4 The Inclusion of Real Communication in the Classroom

Genuine communication and meaningful interaction are the lifeblood of CLT. It is only

when learners are given extensive opportunities to engage in realistic communication, which

is contextually rich and meaningful to them, the objectives of language teaching (the

development of communicative competence) may have chance to be achieved. Nevertheless,

due to the lack of exposure to English speaking environment, foreign language students face

many difficulties to integrate in the English society and attain academic achievements as

native spoken English is mostly fast and idiomatic, formulating quick contribution, shyness,

inability to formulate an idea in English and frustration of being unable to enter a discussion.

The classroom instruction, consequently, should focus attention on the communication

patterns that most probably appear outside the classroom. Negotiation of meaning is one facet

of real communication that can be covered in the classroom. Lee (2000) asserts that whenever

breakdowns in communication occur, negotiation mutually takes place (p.8). Hence, tasks that

stimulate negotiation of meaning can form useful language learning situation in or out of the

classroom, whereby they may be one of the easiest ways to facilitate for the learners to focus

on the form without losing attention on meaning, Long (1996) believes. However, the

challenge is how authentic these tasks can be in the classroom to really replicate the real

negotiation of meaning.

98

3.1.3.4.2 Authenticity for Genuine Communication

It has been believed that communication in the classroom can never achieve absolute

authenticity as the purpose of learning is attaining foreign language competency and hence

real intentions for communication cannot be recreated. In the 1980’s and 1990’s, the language

pedagogy seems to have its practical applications that are stemmed largely from the tenets of

communicative language teaching and “classrooms were increasingly characterized by

authenticity, real-world simulations, and meaningful tasks” (Brown, 2001, p.42).

Communication in the language classroom, therefore, depends on the instructional orientation

of the teacher to create a classroom experience that is conducive to communication. It is CLT

practice that promotes authentic use of language materials that is oriented to useful

engagement with meaningful negotiation, interpretation, and expression in the language

classroom, Kumaravadivelu (2006) claims. From previous interpretation of authenticity in

communicative-oriented classrooms, it is deduced that language pedagogy concerned itself

with bringing the language use, functions and strategies of the outside world to handle the

language inside the classroom, on the one hand. Larsen-Freeman (2000) agrees on that fact

and notes that the authentic context that can be best delivered to learners during language use

is the real-life situations where learners replicate authentic use of language outside the

classroom. Thus, making authenticity the core concept of language teaching is context-

dependent. On the other hand, authenticity in the classroom can be achieved through the use

of authentic materials. Gebhard (1996) gives examples of authentic materials EFL/ ESL

teachers have used. Some of his examples, which are related to their purpose of use in the

classroom, are presented below:

1. Authentic Listening/Viewing Materials: TV commercials, quiz shows, cartoons, news clips,

comedy shows, movies, soap operas, professionally audio-taped short stories and novels,

radio ads, songs, documentaries, and sales pitches.

99

2. Authentic Visual Materials: slides, photographs, paintings, children’s artwork, stick-figure

drawings, wordless street signs, silhouettes, pictures from magazines, ink blots, postcard

pictures, wordless picture books, stamps, and X-rays.

3. Authentic Printed Materials: newspaper articles, movie advertisements, astrology columns,

sports reports, obituary columns, advice columns, lyrics to songs, restaurant menus, street

signs, cereal boxes, candy wrappers, tourist information brochures, university catalogues,

telephone books, maps, TV guides, comic books, greeting cards, grocery coupons, pins with

messages, and bus schedules.

However, what remains unclear in the use of these authentic materials presented by Gebhard

in the classroom, to put it another way, should their use depend on authentic intentions (i.e.,

the same intention of real communicators in the real world) or depend on artificial intentions

(i.e., the teacher’s pedagogical intention e.g., to teach students specific skills). Nunan‘s (1999)

definition of authentic materials has laid down the use of these materials. He defines them as

spoken or written language data that has been produced in the course of genuine

communication, and not specifically written for purposes of language teaching. In line with

the same vision, Coffey (1984) says that “all ESP work is in essence a simulation of a real-life

task” (as cited in Jordan, 1997, p.113). Accordingly, encouraging students to bring into the

classroom their own samples of authentic language data from real-world contexts outside of

the classroom is recommended by Nunan (ibid).

The point that appeared to be at issue in the recent years is whether authenticity is

worthwhile in the ESP/EAP classroom. In this concern, Jordan (ibid) sees nothing wrong with

the non-authentic text in the EAP classroom as long as they are compatible with the

pedagogic purpose; however, Jordan admits that authenticity is the link between classroom

and the outside world. Thus, as far as EAP materials are concerned with authentic texts, they

100

are judged, then, on the basis of their match with those which are normally used in students’

specialist subject area.

3.1.3.5 EAP Communicative Methodology

As mentioned earlier, the communicative approach has passed through different periods

where the approach has polished its tenets, beliefs and implications. Nunan (1989) has

provided a set of principles that stem largely from the beliefs and content of this approach.

According to Nunan’s principles, the learner should be able to use the rules of grammar

effectively and appropriately when communicating as the process was given a priority over

content. Richards (2006) provides an insight of the principles of communicative language

teaching methodology in the time 1970’s to 1990’s as follows:

- Make real communication the focus of language learning.

- Provide opportunities for learners to experiment and try out what they know.

- Be tolerant of learners’ errors as they indicate that the learner is building up his or her

communicative competence.

- Provide opportunities for learners to develop both accuracy and fluency.

- Link the different skills such as speaking, reading, and listening together, since they

usually occur so in the real world.

- Let students induce or discover grammar rules.

Interestingly, tolerance with mistakes is one of the important principles of communicative

methodology as mentioned by Richards. Morrow (1981) stresses also this point when he

espouses the principle mistakes are not always a mistake as one of the communicative

methodology principles. He contends that in order to develop the communicative competence

of students, teachers should be flexible with tolerating mistakes and not every error should be

corrected. Simulation activities, which are described in chapter two of this paper, are one of

101

the communicative activities that adhere to this principle as mistakes are treated as equal as

success as making errors is a sign of progress in learning (Fulcher, 2003).

By deduction, the move from ‘learning that’ to ‘learning how’ which implies the change

from learning by ‘being told’ to learning by ‘doing’ is clear in the classroom methodology

which aims at producing genuine communication where active learning is embedded. It is

‘doing’ which advocated EAP teachers to use a variety of practices in the classroom like

problem-solving exercises, tasks or projects to increase students’ self- awareness of the

alternative ways of learning and to develop their self-confidence (Jordan, 1997). Simulation,

which is a problem-solving task, promotes high quality of communication as it serves in large

part in the activation of communicative competence as participants get involved implicitly in

the communication during simulation activities. Thus, when communication breakdown

occurs, participants will resolve it by negotiating meaning to find the way to understand each

other; they ensure the mutual intelligibility through verbal as well as nonverbal behavior to

make others understand what they mean. During this process, learners can acquire the

properties of language and context that are appropriate to communicate successfully in

particular situation and even familiarizing themselves with the appropriate study skills to be

used in the situation. Therefore, simulations deal with acquiring ‘how to communicate’ not

‘what to communicate’ as formal accuracy is learned as an outcome of performance while

fluency is the aim in simulations (Jones, 1982; Harmer, 2007).The clear evidence of the

promotion of communication through simulation in academic context is the assertion made by

Basta (2011) who puts in her study that “many activities at universities are designed to

improve students' academic literacy” (p.135) as the target goal is to prepare the learners to

perform adequately in the foreign academic culture. She sees that cooperative learning is the

most effective method for teaching communication in higher education, simulation is known

as interactive task, and hence as a matter of deduction, simulation is one of the activities that

102

underpin cooperative learning in its nature. Thus, a simple conclusion is then drawn and states

the fact that simulation is an excellent, reliable and effective activity for reaching the

university goal.

3.1.3.5.1 Communication and the EAP Learner’s Characteristics

On the basis of the statement of Jordan (1997) which says that EAP students “need to be

able to continue their EAP learning without EAP teachers after they moved on to their

specialist studies” (p.116), autonomy is prerequisite for learning. Jordan (ibid) puts that in

addition to autonomous learner who can self-direct his learning, “a mature, balanced

individual, possessing an open, questioning mind, and willing to adopt an active, independent

approach to study” (p.118) and motivated learner is also needed. According to Jordan

classroom materials should be advocated to develop these aspects in the students’

characteristics, that is to say raising students’ awareness to these aspects in order to be

successful. On broader front, the role of classroom instruction should be centred on

encouraging students to discuss and think about their learning, in other words think about “the

reasons for doing what they do” (p.118). In order to achieve the classroom instruction role,

Jordan (1997) recommends espousing learners in self-questioning and discussing and sharing

the learning experiences with each other. The latter activity, which students may engage in, is

motivating according to him. Jordan makes his intention out loud clear for individualised

instructions which stems its existence from the rationality behind ESP/EAP as the instruction

should fit each individual (learner) needs. In the same line of thought, Jones (2007), like

Jordan, supports this idea as he advocates delivering different task to students according to

their strengths and weaknesses. Individualised classroom instruction which goes along with

the student-centred approach depends, in a large part, on the teachers’ ability to manage

his/her classroom. Jones (ibid) says that teachers should be able to manage small/large

classes, mixed-ability classes, monolingual classes, and students with different classes, pair or

103

group work, different personalities, and timing of each task. All these strategies are said to

help the teachers to encourage autonomous and self-directed learning which ends in learners

fully aware of their learning style with will lead to effective learning and thus meaningful and

effective communication.

3.1.3.5.2 Learner-centred Communicative Instruction

ELT has witnessed a revolution in the late 60’s and early 70’s with a shift from the

teacher-centred pedagogy to an emphasis on learners and learning. This has led to what is

known today as Learner-centred teaching approach which has stemmed from CLT. Thinking

of the academic teaching content without any consideration of learner’s role seemed to be

weakening the learning process. There become necessary to shift the focus from mere

thinking of input linguistic manipulation-oriented course design to new paradigm that puts the

learner at the centre of higher education program design.

Learner-centred approach is embedded in communicative language teaching as the latter

evaluates students’ academic and communication needs which constitute the course goals

with regard to the functional communicative competence needed for learners to be adequate

language users in a given task. Learning is “influenced by learners’ perceptions about what

they should contribute, their views about the nature and demands of the task, and their

definitions of the situation in which the task takes place” (Nunan, 1989, p. 20). Consequently,

learning is preceded by the process of knowing students’ needs. Jordan (ibid) attests that

needs analysis is crucial before teaching and learning take place in the classroom. Again, CLT

principle ‘learning by doing’ is clearer as the learners’ ways of doing things in the classroom

are considered as learners “felt comfortable with their own methods and techniques, even if

they were insufficient, and felt insecure if told to change them” (Jordan, 1997, p.14). Hence, it

is the university or college responsibility, in general, and communicative language teaching,

in specific, to put the learner at the heart of the learning process which measures the learning

104

outcomes in terms of the learner’s needs, shortcomings, and the learning challenges in a task.

With regard to the consideration of the learner as the focal point of the learning process,

learner-centred approach remains unclear without a clarification of how the roles are

distributed inside the classrooms. In other words, where do the teacher’s and learner’s roles

start and end.

3.1.3.5.3 The Role of the Teacher in Classroom

With the emergence of CLT, the teacher and learners roles inside the classroom have

also changed. Within this approach, teachers are losing their control over their classroom

“teachers … had to assume the role of facilitator and monitor’s” (Richards, 2006, p.5).

Moreover, Brown (2001) defines the role of teachers in communicative classrooms in terms

of what learners need, he points out “students are encouraged to deal with unrehearsed

situations under the guidance, but not control, of the teacher” (p.44). The controller role

seems to be recognized in the realm of the traditional teaching methodology. One of the main

critics of the controllers’ role, who interferes in every step of the learning process, is that

students will have little chance “to take much responsibility for their own learning” (Harmer,

2007, p.25);however, Brown (ibid) contends also that “the teachers should maintain some

control” (p. 167) in the classroom. The Brown’s assertions is made as some activities such as

simulations need the control of the teacher especially in the planning phase or the briefing

phase in which the controller explains how the technique works, provides students with the

appropriate input, elicit the instructions and timing techniques. When the controller plans for

the task appropriately, interactive classroom will be created. Interestingly, the controller’s role

witnessed some refrains to expand the students’ responsibility over their learning, as a result,

the teacher’s role changes from being controller of planned tasks that seeks for decreasing the

error possibilities of language use to otherwise allowing mistakes and facilitating the learning

process by providing necessary feedback. The teacher helps where necessary by monitoring

105

the strengths and weaknesses of the learner (Littlewood, 1981, pp. 92-93). A more practical

definition is provided by Breen and Candlin (1980) who describe the role of the teacher in the

classroom in terms of three roles: a participant within the learning-teaching group, a facilitator

of the communicative process, and a learner (as cited in Richards and Rodgers, 1986, p. 77).

Nunan (1989) states that problems are likely to appear when there is a gap between the roles

perceived by the teacher and the learner. He clarifies:

It is not uncommon in adult classes for the teacher to see herself as a guide and catalyst

for classroom communication while the learners see her as someone who should be

providing explicit instruction and modeling the target language. In such situations, it is

necessary for there to be a consultation and negotiation between teachers and learners.

(p.84)

Teacher’s role in communicative instruction is rather dynamic, in other words sticking to one

or more roles mentioned by Breen and Candlin earlier is not enough to complete the teachers’

picture in communicative classroom. The teacher still remains the main organizer and

controller of activities, especially in grammar explanations and other information

presentations (Harmer, 2007), though as Littelwood (1981) suggests that the teacher’s

function “becomes less dominant than before, but no less important” (p.19). It is, then,

assumed that the teacher should play different roles to maintain effective classroom

instruction. In the simulations, the main task investigated in this study, the teacher is called

‘the controller’ (John, 1982; John, 1983), but his role is restricted to planning for the

simulation, monitoring the learners’ achievement and never interferes during the simulations

to allow the students take over their learning in interaction in the classroom.

106

3.1.3.5.4 The Role of the Learner in Classroom

Lee (2000) believes that instructors should teach communicative competence as a part

of pedagogy that moves to Learner-learner interaction. As communicative approach

dominated in language teaching, a shift of focus has been made and the emphasis became on

the process of communication rather than the mastery of linguistic forms. This has led to a

considerable change of roles assigned to learners from those found in the traditional language

classrooms. Breen and Candlin (1980) describe the learner's role within CLT as negotiator

who share the negotiation process with himself, learning, and object of learning with others in

the classroom, procedures and activities in the way s/he becomes independent learner. (As

cited in Richards and Rodgers, 1986, p. 77)

Fulcher and Davidson (2007) put the classroom context is characterized by

collaboration between learners. In line with this claim, Breen and Candlin (ibid) make clear

that “learners … had to participate in classroom activities that were based on a cooperative

rather than individualistic approach to learning” (as cited in Richards, 2006, p.5). Learner is

perceived to have an active, negotiator role in which he or she should employ a set of learning

strategies. As Javid, Al-thubaiti and Uthman (2013) point out CLT approach calls for the

participation of learners in the decision-making process and to find out their language learning

strategies LLS (p. 35). Nunan (1989) provides a set of language learning strategies and roles

that stemmed from four important learner abilities: being adaptable, creative, inventive, and

independent. Thereby, according to Nunan (ibid), what is required is:

Finding learner own way (e.g., help him to find a way to best learn vocabulary items)

Organising information about language (through making notes, charts and grouping

items)

Being creative (exploring new ways of using words e.g., playing with different

arrangements of sounds and structures)

107

Making your own opportunities (learning language actively by interacting with fellow

learners or the teacher, asking questions, listening regularly to the language reading

different kinds of texts and practicing writing)

Learning to live with uncertainty (help the learner broaden the scope of meaning by

trying to work thing out with the help of resources like dictionaries, e.g., encouraging

learners to speak about the gist of the text rather than understand every item.)

Using mnemonics (helping learners find quick ways of recalling what they have learned

for example, through rhymes, word classes, etc.).

Making errors work (helping learners to prevent errors from blocking their participation

in tasks, help them to ask for error correction).

Using your linguistic knowledge (helping learners to make comparison between language

of their mother tongue and the new language in terms of formal rules and conventions for

language use).

Letting the context help you (helping learners to infer meaning from the context)

Learning to make intelligent guesses (developing learners’ capacity to work out meaning,

infer meaning of the main parts of message according to their occurrence in the context).

Learning formulised routines (encourage learners to learn whole phrases, sound

sequences, and dialogue extracts, etc.).

Learning production techniques (help learners to develop accuracy as well as fluency)

Using different styles of speech and writing (making learners differentiate between styles

of speech and writing). (p. 81)

These strategies are based on the way learners handle the learning difficulties, create their

own way to learn, and then reflect the knowledge and skills on their language achievements

through autonomy.

108

3.1.3.6 Classroom Interaction

Little et al. in the Shorter Oxford Dictionary of English (1973) define the noun

‘interaction’ as a ‘reciprocal action or influence’; therefore, interaction is more than action

and its reaction. It includes acting reciprocally, giving the same advantage of acting on each

other. Brown (2001) relates interaction to communication, saying, “…interaction is, in fact,

the heart of communication: it is what communication is all about” (p.165). Interaction, then,

has similar implication in the classroom as communication, it is the process that learners and

teachers share for the sake of communication; thus, communicative interaction mostly

encourages cooperative work between learners and teachers (Larsen-Freeman, 2000, p.

127).However, it is noteworthy that not all interactive activities involve communication, for

example performing dialogue that is learned before as an input.

It has been perceived that teaching a language should be oriented towards the

appropriate methodologies in isolation; however, after 1970’s the focus has shifted to consider

the classroom interaction as the most vital element in the instructed second language learning

process (Seedhouse, 1999, p. 149). Seedhouse (ibid) conducted a study investigating

classroom interaction transcripts found that the pedagogical focus of classroom activities is

the task accomplishment rather correctness of the language (p.150). Thornbury and Slade

(2006) take the same view by asserting that classroom talk is rather process-oriented and far

from product-oriented. Thus, the tenets of communicative approach shed their light on the

way interaction is manifested in the classroom. Yu (2008) declares that classroom interaction

reflects the outside socio-cultural and institutional realities and involves the components of

collaborative dialogue, negotiation and co-construction. Collaborative dialogue is the result of

interaction between learners and other members of their socio-cultural world such as parents,

teachers, and friends. Crabbe (2007) provides an instance of collaborative dialogue as “a

continuous and systematic dialogue about learning takes place in the classroom among

109

learners and between learners and teachers” (p.118); however, it is noteworthy, as the

teacher’s role is co-communicator and a facilitator, a minimal interaction between the teacher

and the students can be seen in the classroom (Larsen-Freeman, 2000).

In the same vein, interaction transcripts of many CLT classrooms proved that IRF

exchanges (initiate-respond-follow up) predominate (Thornbury and Slade, 2006, pp. 238-

240). The IFR exchanges resemble the negotiation form that takes place in the classroom.

Negotiation is then the other characteristic of classroom interaction, Yu (2008) presents,

which refers to ‘discussion to reach agreement’ and takes two forms; face-to-face peer

negotiations and corrective feedback negotiation. To stimulate these negotiations, the teacher

initiates the topic, assigns the questions to selected speakers and evaluates their responses.

Lynch (1996) in a specific vision, puts that the use of referential questions that seek for new

information rather than display questions that seek answers, the teacher already knows, is

critical for initiating classroom interaction. He (ibid) supports his claim by saying that

referential questions encourage learners to provide longer responses and initiate

communication between them (pp.108-109). Another important axis in classroom interaction

is the fact that negotiation is co-constructed jointly. Yu (ibid) describes co-construction as the

construction of the awareness of self-regulation gradually from dialogic interaction when they

negotiate. To put it another way, learners’ consistent use of the language structures that are

bound to particular social context become automatic, Yu adds.

Other visions have emphasized some structural features of classroom exchanges such as

the transaction that classroom interaction entails through which the speaker signals the

boundaries of themes or activities that are being used in the whole spoken discourse. By the

same token, Thornbury and Slade (ibid) believe that classroom interaction is transactional

since “the goal is the transmission of subject-matter knowledge from teacher to learners”

(p.240).

110

Nevertheless, the real need for English results from needs in real-time contexts where

learners’ would engage in real interactions to achieve social purposes. Crabbe (2007)

recommends that “the learner must … be given opportunities to develop strategies for

interpreting language in actual use” (p. 3). Thus, classroom interaction is a replication of real-

time interactions that usually take place between learners rather than teacher-learner

interaction that exists in teacher-fronted classrooms and focus on teaching linguistic

structures. It entails cooperation between participants that increases learners’ sociability as

they transmit meaningful messages and maintain interpersonal relationships. Brown (2001)

believes that interaction is about collaboration process in which the learner sends and receives

messages in dialogue form, negotiates their meanings in context (p. 165). In essence,

classroom interaction develops learners learning as it can create the learning opportunities,

which motivate the students’ interest to communicate with others (Yu, 2008).

As we speak about interaction, one cannot deny the place of language use that aims at

achieving a purpose in constructing the interaction. Here the best referent is ‘function’ that

stands for communicative act. Ur (1996) puts that function that is usually confused with the

term ‘notion’ involves interaction. He (ibid) adds that the use of function is often binary, in

other words “the performance of one implies a certain response or set of responses which take

the form of another, complementary function” (pp. 92-93). The participants in the interaction

practice the so called the adjacency pair, for example, one suggests and the other accepts or

refuses. This format of interaction has to be dealt with in the classroom instruction, namely,

activities (further discussion of these activities will be in the coming section of this chapter).

3.1.3.7 Cooperative and Collaborative Learning

In the past few decades, group work or pair work learning has gradually made its way

into foreign language classrooms. Cooperative Learning (CL) started developing within the

111

framework of communicative language teaching. By now, teachers are more acquainted with

cooperative and collaborative learning. “Collaboration is a philosophy of interaction and

personal lifestyle whereas cooperation is a structure of interaction designed to facilitate the

accomplishment of an end product or goal” (Panitz, 1996, p. 1). CL is then group work

structured in such a way as to enable student interaction, the exchange of information, as well

as cooperation. Thus, as CL emerged from CLT, it aims at developing communicative

competence by means of activities of social interaction nature that involve a joint work by two

or more learners.

According to McCarthy (1991) “task-based contexts where students carry out group

activities can yield natural use of boundary marking by the participants when the teacher is no

longer dominant” (as cited in McCarthy 1998, p. 51). Of the same account, Harmer (2007,

2008) asserts that pair work encourages independent interaction without teacher guidance.

Cooperative learning, hence, sustains students’ responsibility and raises their awareness

towards their learning decisions without the supervision of a teacher. Furthermore, teachers

gain more time to focus on two or more individuals in the group at the same time (Harmer,

ibid). Speaking about further advantages of cooperative learning, Richards (2006) provides a

set of benefits of cooperative learning as follows:

- [Learners] can learn from hearing the language used by other members of the group.

- They will produce a greater amount of language than they would use in teacher-fronted

activities.

- Their motivational level is likely to increase.

- They will have the chance to develop fluency.(p.20)

In the same vein, Lynch (2009) claims that classroom collaborative work has two advantages:

the first is sustaining learners’ attention and motivation as students get out of listening

112

individual activities routine, while the second is the provision of opportunities to compare

notes with partners and exchanging their individual interpretations.

Using cooperative learning in classroom activities is in fact typical to CLT principles

where learners seek for autonomy and teacher monitors their way to achieve that. By the same

token, teachers’ role is to teach his students collaborative or social skills so that they can

interact together effectively (Larsen-Freeman, 2000, p. 164). However, cooperative work

should not be introduced to students directly. Before they attempt the group work, students

need to be familiar with this type of work through simple practice, e.g., two line question-

answer exchanges (Sadow, 1987, p. 34). Once learners contend with the cooperative learning,

the teacher’s role began to appear. Rationally, the teacher is the responsible for selecting the

appropriate partners in group or pair work. Harmer (2008) suggests some vital criteria for

choosing partners. He says that friendship, streaming (gathering mixed-ability students), and

chance can be used to identify who is going to work with whom. Furthermore, Harmer (ibid)

contends that the nature of the task can primarily determine the partners in cooperative

learning.

3.1.3.8 Task-based Communication

In 1980’s, Task-based approach emerged to open the door for new perspectives in

language instruction and map the floor for the operation of communication in the language

classroom. Task, hence, became the driven power of language teaching and its definition

ranges from activities people do to its implication to the language learning context as Ellis

(2003) defines it:

A work plan that requires learners to process language pragmatically in order to

achieve an outcome that can be evaluated in terms of whether the correct or appropriate

propositional content has been conveyed. To this end, it requires them to give primary

113

attention to meaning and to make use of their own linguistic resources, although the

design of the task may dispose them to choose particular forms. A task is intended to

result in language use that bears resemblance, direct or indirect, to the language is used

in the real world. Like other language activities, a task can engage productive or

receptive, and oral or written skills and also various cognitive processes. (p. 16)

As stated in the definition, task promotes language use for a purpose, used as an assessment

tool for communication success, and bridges the gap between grammatical competence and

communicative competence as it allows linguistic resources to be used as a means to an end

with a communication purpose. Nunan (1989) also supports this fact when he asserts tasks

involve communicative language use in which the users’ attention is focused on meaning

rather than linguistic structure (p.10). Ellis (ibid) refers to target task as direct or indirect

resemblance of real-life language use, while pedagogical task takes place in the classroom as

it is “… a piece of classroom work which involves learners in comprehending, manipulating,

producing or interacting in the target language” (p.10). Lee (2000) declares communication

and classroom, principles to be considered to engage in task-based teaching. The task-based

concept entails a flexible approach in which “content and tasks are developed in tandem”

(Nunan, 1989, p. 19).

3.1.3.9 Communicative Activities

According to American (e.g., Savignon, 1991) and Canadian (e.g., Canale & Swain,

1980) commentators, CLT was essentially concerned with the concepts of negotiation,

interpretation, and expression which form the core basis for communicative activities

(Kumaravadivelu, 2006, p.61). As students carry out communicative tasks, the assumption is

that they engage in the process of negotiation of meaning, employing strategies such as

comprehension checks, confirmation checks, and clarification requests. These are believed to

lead to a gradual modification of learners’ language output, which over time takes on more

114

and more target-like forms (Richards, 2008, p. 31). Precisely speaking, the efficient

communication does not mean expressing language accurately in terms of its structure in its

most part, but it is the careful choice of words that are used appropriately and correspondingly

to a given context that both speaker and hearer share (Littelwood, 1981).

According to Richards (2006) communicative activities today involve the use of

language in real communication situations where the use of language is usually unpredictable

(p. 16). Littlewood (ibid) and Harmer (2008) also believe that practice activities should model

'real-life' language use. Furthermore, “realistic activities have the advantage that they are

relatively easy to formulate and can more or less replicate true-to-life experiences that the

students might encounter in the target culture” (Sadow, 1987, p. 33). Therefore, simulation is

more conducive to generating classroom communication, precisely, real-life communication.

Thus, simulation activity seem the most adequate task to thrive classroom communication as

it stimulates interaction, cooperative learning, learners’ autonomy, and genuine language use

in academic context (the classroom).

It is well-known that communicative activities are ruled by certain ideas that explain

and control how they work in the classroom. Jordan (1997) adopts five principles that Johnson

(1982) proposes for communicative exercise typology:

1. Information transfer (e.g. reading information to extract data in order to fill in a form);

2. Information gap (e.g. information is known by only one student in pair and it can be

conveyed by different exercises to the other student);

3. Jigsaw (an example of co-operative learning in which each member of a small group has a

piece of information needed to complete a group task)

115

4. Task dependency (the principle by which a second task can only be done if the first task

has been successfully completed, e.g. listening to, or reading, something and then using the

information to produce something, e.g. a report (oral or written);

5. Correction for content (the principle argues that ‘at some stage the student’s language

production should be judged its communicative efficacy in relation to a specific task)

(p.112)

On instructional front, the most influential work concerning communicative activities which

is advocated to Littlewood (1981) work on communicative activities should be considered. He

divided the communicative activities into two phases; pre-communicative activities are

typically used to acquaint learners with the language forms. Then, the teacher starts the

communicative activities by engaging learners in situations in order to put the linguistic forms

at work and communicate meaning fluently (pp. 85-89). The pre-communicative activities can

be performed as structure-based communication tasks which Loschky and Blay-Vroman

(1990) distinguished them into three types:

1. Tasks which make the use of a specific grammatical construction ‘natural’ but which can

be performed without using it.

2. Tasks which make the performance of a task easier if a specific grammatical structure is

used but which again can be performed without it.

3. Tasks where the use of a specific grammatical structure is essential (i.e. the tasks cannot be

performed without use of the structure in question). (As cited in Ellis, 1997, pp. 82-83)

Speaking about the quality of the communicative, we should consider Richards’s (2006)

characteristics that underpin communicative activities as follows:

They seek to develop students’ communicative competence through linking grammatical

development to the ability to communicate. Hence, grammar is not taught in isolation but

116

often arises out of a communicative task, thus creating a need for specific items of

grammar. Students might carry out a task and then reflect on some of the linguistic

characteristics of their performance.

They create the need for communication, interaction, and negotiation of meaning through

the use of activities such as problem solving, information sharing, and role play.

They provide opportunities for both inductive as well as deductive learning of grammar.

They make use of content that connects to students’ lives and interests.

They allow students to personalize learning by applying what they have learned to their

own lives.

Classroom materials typically make use of authentic texts to create interest and to provide

valid models of language.

Richards (2006) characteristics reflect the creative, interactive, purposive, and authentic

nature of communicative activities. The purpose and the learning goals identify the kind of the

activities, as communication activities “aim ultimately for social acceptability as well as

functional effectiveness” (Littlewood, 1981, p. 43), and then a distinction is clearly made

between functional and social communicative activities.

3.1.3.9.1 Functional Communicational Activities

The inclusion of communication in context decrees the appropriateness and

effectiveness of language used; thus, the shift is clearly made from how linguistic items are

formed (the structural approach) to what communicative purpose is expressed by these

combined words. As a result, meaning conceptualization is highlighted into a spectrum of

different functions. Many scholars agree on that the aim of functional communication

117

activities is to use learners’ language resources to overcome an information gap or solve a

problem (Littlewood, ibid; Richards, ibid). One of which Widdowson (1989) also claims that

communicative competence is achieved through functional investment by engaging learners

in problem solving tasks that are participatory and motivational in their nature according to Ur

(1996). Adding to this claim, Ur (ibid) contends that the investment of function in language

use depends “on its actual context” (p. 93) and he further advises that learners need to

function in a variety of different contexts where simulations and role play in opposition to

discussions would provide a wide range of these contexts.

3.1.3.9.2 Social Interaction Activities

According to Littlewood (1981) functional effectiveness is not enough but conforming

to social conventions is needed to communicate effectively. He accentuates the task of the

communicator as “to let social as well as functional considerations affect his choice of

language” (p. 43). Richards (2006) points out that context, the roles of the participants

identify the formal versus informal language and hence the choice of language should be

addressed in social interactive activities (p.18). Recently, classroom activities focus on

developing learners’ communicative ability which requires the involvement of the social

dimension of language. Native speakers in daily conversation-that is to say when language is

used for the sake of communication focus more on language use than on grammar

(Widdowson, 1978). As a matter of fact, language used in social situations exerts

communication as its own objective and supplements classrooms with the social dimension of

language use. Thus, we would firmly agree with Willis and Willis (2007) who say that tasks

used in the language classrooms should take into consideration the social requirements of

language use. In order to achieve that, Willis and Willis (ibid) propose two mandatory

conditions; raising learners’ consciousness to “the way the social dimension is encoded”, and

providing “the appropriate language forms” (p. 148).

118

Conclusion

Communication takes a central position in university instructions; accordingly it should

be assigned deservedly the importance to be the core focus of communication in English for

Academic Purposes (EAP) contexts. This arena includes organisational communication

between sub-systems of the university; faculty, institute or department where English is used

to achieve academic, personal, and professional purposes. This chapter took the narrowest

front of the sub-systems – the classroom. Consequently, classroom instruction, interaction and

the most possible practices of effective communication requirements, have been interestingly

covered to show the significant role of simulation, as motor generator of communication, in

EAP contexts.

CHAPTER FOUR:

PILOT STUDY AND EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

Introduction 119

4.1 The Pilot Study 119

4.1.1 Design and Implementation 120

4.1.2 Population and Sample of the Pilot Study 121

4.1.3 Results of the Pilot Study 121

4.2 The Main Investigation: Quasi-experimental Design 124

4.2.1 Population of the Study 125

4.2.2 Sampling 125

4.2.3 Duration 126

4.2.4 Objectives 126

4.2.5 Procedure 127

4.2.6 How Simulations Work in this Study 127

4.2.6.1 Role Assignment in the Simulation 130

4.2.6.2 Class Arrangement in the Simulation 131

4.2.6.3 Timing in Simulation 132

4.2.6.4 The Six Simulations in this Study: Authenticity of the Instruction 132

4.2.6.5 The Use of Multimedia in Simulation 134

4.2.6.6 The Language Focus in the Simulations 135

4.2.6.7 The Debriefing 137

4.2.6.7.1 Using Video Recording as a Tool of Assessment 137

4.2.7 Simulation Lesson Model 138

4.2.8 Spoken Data Collection Procedure 143

Conclusion 143

119

Chapter Four: Pilot Study and Experimental Design

Introduction

As the main aim of this thesis is to prove the efficacy of simulation activities on

students’ speaking and listening proficiency development, an experimental study is

conducted. We dedicated this chapter to foreground the skeleton of the instructional treatment

employed in the experiment. First, this chapter reviews the pilot study results which intend to

constitute a platform for the main experiment and refrain it from any inadequate procedure

that leads to undesirable, unauthentic, and non-confidential results. Second, the explanation of

the experimental design of this study, including the description of the population, the

sampling technique and then the procedure followed in the experiment is highlighted.

Furthermore, how simulations work in this study is elaborated in a large part of this chapter.

4.1 The Pilot Study

A pilot study is a “small scale version or trial run in preparation for major study” (Polit,

Beck, & Hungler, 2001, p.467). To put it another way, pilot study helps determining the

feasibility of the research and pre-warning the researcher about any weakness of the proposed

study. Mackey and Gass (2005) elaborate the aim of this small version study as “to test-often

to revise- and then finalize the material and the methods” (p.43). Moreover, Simon (2011)

puts that pilot study increases the chances of the research success as it can help reduce the

ambiguity of the research and resolve many factors before the main study is conducted, such

as whether the instructions are comprehensible, the investigators are skilled in the procedures,

the wording of the survey, the reliability and validity of the tests, and the efficacy of the

assessment process.

120

4.1.1 Design and Implementation

As far as this study is concerned, a pilot study was conducted in the first semester of the

academic year 2014-2015 at the Department of Letters and English language, in the

University of Frères Mentouri, Constantine1. Thus, the pilot study was conducted one year

prior to the main study for two reasons; first, avoiding conducting both the pilot study and the

major study on the same sample and thus the probability of affecting the test reliability can be

increased as the participants will be exposed to the same materials twice which can lead to a

better performance in the second time. The second reason is that this study needs to be

conducted during the first semester as it is the longest semester in comparison with the second

one which is overlapped with the exam period and the spring holidays.

The pilot study took eight 90 minutes classes, two classes per week. Additionally, one

week (two 90 minutes classes) before and after the eight classes were devoted to data

collection; pre-test and pre-questionnaire, post-test and post-questionnaire.

In the instruction, in the pilot study, four simulations were implemented. Teachers’

meeting, radio programme, and university repair were the main simulations used in the pilot

study. The pilot tests took place in the form of learner-learner discussion. These discussions

were audio-taped and tapes were used for the assessment of speaking and listening

proficiency.

The pilot pre/postquestionnaires include two similar sections; whereas the pre-

questionnaire includes three additional sections. Thus, the pre-questionnaire was divided into

five sections; the first deals with investigating the demographic nature of the sample: age and

sex. The second section intends to collect date about academic profile, while the third is

concerned with the educational status. The fourth section, in the pre-questionnaire, requests

information about the emphasized skills, the used activities and materials, the participation

121

rate, while in the post-questionnaire deals with the degree of participation and students’

opinion about the simulations. The last section aims at investigating students’ speaking and

listening levels, their preferences about the teaching materials, activities and methodology.

4.1.2 Population and Sample of the Pilot Study

The participants of the pilot study were randomly selected from the whole population

enrolled in the University of Frères Mentouri, Constantine 1, Department of Letters and

English language. Second year students (491 learners) were selected as the population of the

pilot study. The pilot study was quasi-experimental in nature. One experimental group,

selected randomly, participated in the study. Baker (1994) puts that the reasonable number of

participants enrolling in the pilot study is 10-20% of the sample size for the actual study. The

sample size for the actual study is 20% (1/5) of the whole population. Thus, it is (491/5)

ninety eight (n=98) learners. Considering Baker’s statement, the sample size of pilot study

(20%) is nineteen (n=19) learners belong to one whole class.

4.1.3 Results of the Pilot Study

The results revealed students’ good control of linguistic features that were under focus

in the simulations (such as grammar, pronunciation and vocabulary); thus the practice of these

features was unnecessary, besides rehearsal in the form of tasks was missing. As a result, a

practice of functional language and integration of tasks were considered in the main study.

Besides, the pilot study results gave insights about speaking and listening proficiency

development. The assessment of speaking using the analytic rubric revealed a significant

improvement basically in fluency and grammar. While the students’ use of the hypothesis

testing, forward inferencing and uptakes strategies, which proficient listeners use according to

Vandergrift (1997), was meagre.

122

The findings also indicated the participants’ awareness of the importance of both the

speaking and listening skills to advance their academic as well as future professional career

and communicating with foreigners. The participants confessed themselves not to be

confident in speaking and listening as fear of making mistakes and fluency are the main

aspects that hinder their speaking. However, the pilot experiment has revealed the following

deficiencies:

The first indication in the pilot study is the use of one experimental group which may

lead to invalidating the results or the feasibility of the experiment, especially that the

experimental design applied in the pilot study is of quasi nature which is famous for its weak

internal validity. Consequently, a consideration of enhancing the experimental design should

be taken while the main study is designed.

Concerning the instruction, the results of the pilot study indicated a shortcoming in the

introduction of the simulation technique to students at the beginning of the study which

caused frustrated performance. Students are more likely to take the simulation seriously if

they understand what the learning objectives are, what they are expected to do, and how they

will be graded (Herbert and Sturtridge, 1979). This insufficiency of instruction has led to

recurring interference of the teacher which is not desirable according to Jones (1982).

Therefore, this deficiency should be remedied by adding a briefing session at the beginning of

the study and diminishing the interference of the controller.

Additionally, a detailed discussion about the students’ performance in the simulation

was done on short scale. This is due to the absence of video recording of the simulations to

give students a chance to recycle what they did, thus they can learn more. This fact is

supported by Murphey and Kenny‘s (1996) claim: “videoing pre-practiced strategies in action

… gives students rich segments of conversation to learn from when they replay them” (p.

123

202). Therefore, simulation sessions should be enlarged upon shortly with a follow-up session

(debriefing session) where videotaped simulations are played to detect and avoid any

shortcoming in the next simulation.

The tendency to test listening comprehension in the pilot study was difficult to resist.

Thus, one-way listening was almost more important than the main focus of the study which is

interactive listening. We have been driven by the stereotyped way of teaching listening,

whereas what should be taught through simulations is how the listener provides feedback to

the interlocutor in order to clarify meaning and signal understanding. In short, teaching

listening should be centred round playing an active role in cooperation with the interlocutor to

fulfil the goal(s) of the interaction while the assessment of listening proficiency should focus

on interactive listening.

In addition, some limitations were experienced in the pilot testing, among which some

were remediable whereas others were unfortunately not. Time was the main limitation

addressed as time allocated to some tasks in the simulation was insufficient and stretching this

time would lead to delaying some other tasks which should not be separated from the main

event in the simulation with a long time. Group size was another limitation encountered as

participants’ participation was too limited due to the large number of students in the same

group (39) where only 19 students were enrolled in the pilot study. Listening laboratories

were not equipped with sufficient materials to include all the participants.

The research encountered also few problems during the pilot study concerning the

questionnaires. This was limited to misunderstandings of some items such as the questions

about the activities that students have not dealt with yet and length of some questions which

include ranking as participants were reluctant to answer long questions. This required

clarification when requested and organizing some questions in tables in the form of rating

124

scales which will lead to a better understanding and responding. Some questions, which were

confusing or deal with investigating one-way listening problems, were unnecessary included.

Notwithstanding, some suggestions and opinions of the participants were considered in the

main study.

4.2 The Main Investigation: Quasi-experimental Design

Often new teaching methods are toted as effective practices in studies that measured one

group with a pre-test, implemented a treatment manipulation, and then measured the same

variable – as was measured with the pre-test – with a post-test (Cohen, Manion, & Morrison,

2000). In regard to this account, this study, which aims at investigating the effectiveness of

the teaching practice (simulation activities), considers one group pre-test/post-test design as

its overall design. It is often represented as: 1 O X 2 O with 1 O representing the pre-test, X

representing the treatment implemented, and 2 O representing the post-test (Cohen et al.,

ibid).

A quasi-experimental design is used in this study. Worth mentioning, this design has

been subjected to criticism for its weak internal validity, for that reason different versions

were proposed to avoid any weakness in internal validity. Dornyei (2007) asserts that it is not

easy to design a quasi-experimental study and thus he proposed two conditions for having an

effective quasi-experimental design; “avoiding any situation whereby the students self-select

themselves (for example, volunteer) to be in the treatment group” and “minimizing the pre-

test differences between the treatment and the control group as much as possible” (p. 117). As

far as this study is concerned, the first condition has been successfully achieved as we have

been assigned to teach both groups, enrolled in the experiment, by the department of Letters

and the English Language without pre-arrangement. Concerning the second condition, the

participants in both groups have been matched according to the pre-test results to minimize

125

the differences between them before they are subjected to the intervention (this procedure will

be further explained later in this chapter).

4.2.1 Population of the Study

The sample of the present study is derived from a population of 285 second-year LMD

(Licence Master Doctorate) students of English, at the University of Frères Mentouri,

Constantine 1, during the academic year 2015–2016. The reason behind choosing this

population in particular is that the majority of the students of English, as foreign language

learners, struggle with the psychological effects to speak or be engaged in classroom

activities; thus their first year at the university is generally oriented towards freeing the

learners from the anxiety of speech. In their second year, afterwards, more efforts to improve

their language competence as well as performance are exerted. Considering the immersive

nature of simulations, students can develop their language by submerging themselves in

language learning when attention is paid to their involvement in the activity as much as it is

paid to their efficacy. Consequently, simulations seem to find their place in the second year

syllabus.

4.2.2 Sampling

Our sample is a total of 40 students, constituting experimental groups; two groups with

an average of 20 students each. Both groups were randomly enrolled in this study as the

students were randomly assigned to different groups by the administration. Random sampling

which “refers to the selection of participants from the general population that the sample will

represent” (Mackey and Gass, 2005, p. 119) has two common types: simple random sampling

and stratified random sampling. According to Mackey and Gass (ibid) simple random

sampling means “ensuring that each and every member of a population has an equal and

independent chance of being selected for the research” and “stratified random sampling

provides precision in terms of the representativeness of the sample and allows preselected

126

characteristics to be used as variables” (p.120).As the experimental design for this study is

quasi and the participants in both groups should be assigned non-randomly. Stratified random

sampling procedure was appropriate. Dornyei (2007) puts that the participants should not be

randomly assigned in the experiment by the researcher, thus the approximate equilibrium

created between groups brings a fairer results. He (2007) adds that to minimize the differences

between the treatment and control groups, there are two methods. Matching the participants in

both groups is the first method. To achieve this match both groups, treatment and control

groups, should be equated “on a case-by-case basis on one or more variables” which have an

impact on the dependent variable. Using the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), which is the

second method Dornyei offers, applies “a statistical method for adjusting the post-test scores

for any pre-test differences” (p. 118). In the present study, stratified random sampling was

used, particularly, matching procedure where participants in both experimental groups, were

matched on the basis of their achievement in the pre-test in the speaking skill. On the basis of

this mark, participants were matched and assigned to two different well-matched experimental

groups (Exp. G.).

4.2.3 Duration

The whole experiment lasted 3 months. The instruction was delivered in twenty four

sessions; each session lasts one hour and a half. The sessions were devoted as follows:

- Four sessions for the pre-test and for the post-test.

- Three sessions for each simulation with the exception of simulation 1 which included

two more sessions: one for the role play and another for the maze task in the practice

phase.

4.2.4 Objectives

Each element of the experiment had a purpose which serves to achieve the aim of this

study. The pre/post tests were used to collect data for comparable reasons as to differentiate

127

the results and seek any possible improvement of students speaking and listening proficiency.

They serve as a means to detect the relationship between the research variables.

The questionnaires of both students and teachers aim at collecting factual information

(sex, age, language learning and teaching status) and opinions (views, attitudes,

preferences…etc.) about the effectiveness and usefulness of simulation activities for second

year students. The objective of the treatment materials is to provide controlled environment

for the study. These materials serve as reference to discover new relationships or properties

associated with them.

4.2.5 Procedure

The present study consists of three fundamental stages: the pre-test, instruction and the

post-test. The instruction is explained in this chapter, while test are elaborated in chapter

seven. Both experimental groups had two Oral Expression (OE) sessions of one and a half

hour per week. They were both provided with instruction of six simulations during these

scheduled hours.

4.2.6 How Simulations Work in this Study

Half an hour was devoted to the explanation of simulation Jones (1982) declares that the

briefing phase can be half an hour if necessary (p.32). This explanation was necessary in the

light of the fact that second year students of English, at the University of Frères Mentouri,

Constantine 1, are not familiar with this technique. Noteworthy, one of the two groups of the

sample was not acquainted with any drama activities in the first year, mainly role plays which

are commonly taught at the Department of Letters and the English Language, while the other

group had one semester in the first year dealing with role play activities.

There are six simulations in this study implemented in second year classes at the

University of Frères Mentouri, Constantine 1 in 2015-2016. Each simulation lesson is

128

designed according to the three phases of task-based approach, pre-task represents the

preparation stage, during-task represents the simulation, and post task stands for the follow-up

session. In other words, all the simulations rely mainly on two axes which are: preparation

and execution. In the preparation stage, the simulations used both approaches; PPP

(presentation, practice, production), and TBL (task based learning). At the heart of this stage

was teaching structural knowledge that learners need in order to perform their functions in the

simulation adequately as “it is still possible — desirable, in fact — to prepare the students

beforehand by practising some of the functional language they are likely to need in the

simulation; e.g. giving orders or instructions, expressing agreement or disagreement, making

proposals, and so on” and “the indispensable lexis of the subject matter must be taught where

necessary” ( Kerr, 1977, p.7).

PPP model is seen substantially effective as it focuses on presenting grammar points, lexis,

language functions most needed in the simulations, and allows some practice and production

in different kinds of activities. In spite of the fact that what is practiced and produced can be

far from what should be done, the PPP model serves as a method that structures learning in

this study. Noteworthy, the simulations in this study replicate the communicative method, that

is to say, the simulation task resembles the action “do” which follows “learn”. In addition,

knowing that “tasks seem more fun and keep our students interested, as well as providing

more natural learning opportunities” (Loumpourdi, 2005, p.33), their use becomes

indispensable. Thus, TBL in this study, which forms part of the communicative method, is

duplicated in the form of simulation activities.

In the execution stage (the simulation phase), TBL raises the rate of success for learners

and helps better learn not only the language for its sake but the language in use to achieve

different purposes. This resembles the last P in PPP model which stands for production in

which what has been presented and learned is likely less efficient if it is not put in real-like

129

situations. This fact gives simulations an established status that is appreciated by students.

Consequently, since simulation promotes active learning, TBL seems to come in line with this

technique.

Each simulation took one session (1 hour and a half) in the preparatory stage as it was

devoted to presentation and practice lesson. Besides, one session (1hour and a half) was

dedicated to the simulation or production stage. A follow up session (1hour and a half) was

needed to debrief what has been done and achieved in the simulation.

Before speaking about simulation session structure, it is worth mentioning the

explanation of the principles of simulation activities. As the aim of the simulation activities is

to develop students communicative ability, the principles that underpin the simulations used

in this study are the same principles of the communicative exercise typology proposed by

Johnson (1982) (see Chapter Three, Subsection 3.1.3.9 Communicative Activities, p. 113).

The principles are illustrated with examples from the simulations as follows:

1. Information transfer (students in the simulations are required to read information, listen to

an audio or watch a video to extract data in order to perform effectively in the simulations);

2. Information gap (in many simulations some information are known by only one or two

students in pair or group of students, according to their function and the situation of the

simulation and it can be conveyed by interacting with each other);

3. Jigsaw (in all the simulations participants work together by bringing the different pieces of

information and then complete a group task which is in most cases either solving a

problem or reaching a decision);

4. Task dependency (simulations in this study are always preceded by listening or reading

which can never be done without completing the listening or the reading task. In a nutshell,

the whole session that precedes the simulation session serves as the task that simulation

depends on to be successfully completed);

130

5. Correction for content (due to the minor control that the teacher has over the participants’

performance during the simulations as they involve self-directed learning, the correction of

the student’s language production and its communicative efficacy is delayed until the

debriefing session in which a discussion about students’ achievements in the simulation, in

accordance to the task purpose, takes place)

The simulation session itself was divided into three parts; the briefing which meant to

increase learners’ familiarity with the theme of the simulation. At this stage the controller has

to be careful in terms of the amount of explanation he/she provides to the participants as Jones

(1982) puts. The briefing included also the timing (the deadline for each task in the

simulation), the procedures (what should participants do and the data and resources they

have), the location (the arrangement of the classroom to model real-life environment), and

explanation of any teaching aids (charts, documents, role cards, etc.). (Jones, ibid, p. 35)

4.2.6.1 Role Assignment in the Simulation

Harmer (2007) believes that students can play as themselves or someone else; however,

the decision can be made by trying simulations with and without roles to see which works

best with a particular group. Nevertheless, some simulations exert one option over the other

according to the nature of the problem addressed in the simulation and its occurrence in the

students’ life. Accordingly, the majority of the simulations were based on students playing the

roles as themselves. This choice has been made for two reasons: to approximate the students’

learning to real-life situations they might most probably encounter and accentuate the

responsibility of their personal achievements in the simulations, and as a result encourage

autonomous learning. The teacher in the simulations performed the role which is exerted by

the communicative language teaching and imposed by the simulation rules: the controller who

has the most important status during a simulation. The role of the controller in this study was

restricted to “adjust [ing] the seating arrangements or extend [ing] a time limit” (Jones, ibid,

131

p. 41). The controller, then, had minimum control over the simulations – no matter how much

the temptation is big – as the interference of the controller may lead to breaking the chain of

thoughts of the participants, pushing the participants to abandon their functions and duties and

inhibit their language use, according to Jones (1982). His interference might be in the most

exceptional cases via a note from any participant to the others (e. g. asking for urgent meeting

which leads to cut the simulation off to allow the controller interference) during the

simulation, however his most contribution to the language learning (his original goal in the

language classroom) took place in the debriefing phase (further explanation of the debriefing

will be in the subsection 4.2.7.7 The Debriefing).

4.2.6.2 Class Arrangement in the Simulation

Kerr (1977) puts that “classes of twenty or more students are too large to benefit greatly

from language games and simulations, since individual speaking time is bound to be very

short” (p. 6). Hence, minimizing group size in the simulations and maximizing speaking time

took place in this study. A helping procedure to maximize the speaking time is applying the

cooperative work. In other words, Kerr (ibid) suggests “in the case of simulations, large

numbers are best catered for by dividing them into small groups and requiring each group to

perform a separate but interrelated task” (p.7). In this study, the classroom arrangement is

constrained by the group work and the nature of the simulation theme. However, some

simulations (simulations two, four, and six, see appendix XI) employed small group as well as

large group work.

The classroom context plays vital role in students’ learning experience, especially as

simulation depends largely on the environment. Considering what Jones (ibid) puts “the

environment must be simulated, otherwise it is not a simulation” (pp.4-5), the classroom was

reshaped to provide a simulated environment. However, the inaccessibility of some materials

such as equipment to simulate the studio environment (in simulation three: radio program),

132

big round- table to simulate the assembly hall (in simulation four: university repair: the

plenary meeting), we had to resort either to change the location of tables to form long table

like in simulations two, four and six, or to do the simulation in the laboratory to use the

recording equipment and headphones, e. g. in simulation three. (See the class arrangement

figures in appendix XI)

4.2.6.3 Timing in Simulation

The length of simulations vary dramatically, Davis (2009) declares that some

simulations may last only 5 to 10 minutes while others are held over multiple class sessions

(Jones, 1983). The majority of simulations, in the present study, took from 15 to 30 minutes

depending on the simulation nature; for example the simulations which involved more than

five participants and was designed around ‘meetings’ (simulations two, four and six) lasted

half an hour.

4.2.6.4 The Six Simulations in this Study: Authenticity of the Instruction

The six simulations used in this study were designed by the teacher because first

teachers should be given every encouragement to design their own simulations, and second

the shared cultural background and professional interests may need special designed

simulations, according to Kerr (1977). Kerr (ibid) clarifies that the selection of simulations for

inclusion in an ELT programme, the nature of the language to be employed and its usefulness

to the students must be considered in the first place. Besides, he (ibid) contends that for a

successful simulation the conceptual level and theme need to match the participants’

expectations. Moreover, “the closer the simulation can be to reality and to the student's own

first language role or new foreign language role, the closer the language that he produces will

be to that which he will need to produce in the real situation” (Herbert and Sturtridge, 1979,

p.9). Considering all the prior claims, we have decided to design simulations which intend to

satisfy the conditions Kerr (ibid) mentions.

133

The first five simulations considered the shared culture, interests, expectations, and the

real target needs and situations; besides, they are inspired by the six simulations proposed by

Jones (1983), while, the sixth simulation was proposed by the students themselves as Harmer

(2007) claims that to sustain motivation, students should feel responsible for their learning. In

other words, “they will have some decision making power, perhaps, over the choice of which

activity to do next” (p.21). Accordingly, we have assigned learners to choose one of the

simulations, particularly the last one, when they became familiar with these activities.

Furthermore, concerning the authenticity of the themes of the simulations, a high degree

was achieved, despite the fact that we did not adopt simulations as they were from Jones

(1983) book, but rather we tried to invent scenarios that students might encounter in their life.

Accordingly, we have chosen the following themes:

-Simulation one: getting a job (talks about company board meeting to decide on the best

fit for a particular job).

- Simulation two: teachers meeting (the head of the department meets the students and

teachers to discuss their concerns).

-Simulation three: radio program (encourages students to make their own radio

program).

-Simulation four: university repair (includes plenary meeting to discuss the committee

meeting and informal consultation sessions’ results about the solutions provided to fix the

problems the faculty is suffering from).

- Simulation five: news program (approaches one of the students target needs which is

job in the time job is, paradoxically, unattainable).

134

-Simulation six: leaders’ debate (learners were approximated to their reality by talking

about the issues that concerns them as citizens in their country in a debate which forms part of

election campaign).

Additionally, materials (e.g., audio, video recordings, job advertisement, and articles),

employed in the preparation stage as input generator for the simulations, were genuine

because of the simple fact that simulations are replication of real-life situation, so students

should see the real performance before they do it themselves in their simulations. In regard to

this view, materials were selected, however, due to the absence of absolute match of these

materials with the intended theme of the simulations; we could not use them in some of the

simulations (simulations one and four).

4.2.6.5 The Use of Multimedia in Simulation

Multimedia took part in the simulation activities, particularly, audio and video materials

were used to elicit the linguistic factors and therefore “reducing the complexity of the task

(e.g., by familiarizing students with the demands of the activity)” (Richards, 2008, p. 33).

Herron et al. (1995) put that video links language forms to meaning better than instructional

materials. Thus, the main reason for substituting written texts like text-books or worksheets

with video is that videos supplement the text (Herron and Morris, ibid). Besides, the visual

clues, the video affords, help students guess the meaning of the proposition of the speech

event, memorize the linguistic features, and acquire “strategies to overcome communication

problems, and paralinguistic devices” (Ellis 2003, p. 246). Furthermore, knowing that “to do a

simulation, present students with a context” (O’Malley and Valdez Pierce, 1996, p. 86), and

audio-visual instruction is significantly useful when it is used to simulate what students will

perform later (Bonwell and Eison, 1991), video or audio was used then as the alternative

material to elicit the context, therefore the language forms. This research brought into line

with the idea of investing meaningful speech to actively engage students in intelligible

135

exchange of ideas in the production stage. This idea supports the output hypotheses thus

interaction and refrains the input hypothesis (see Chapter One subsection 1.1.2 Speaking

Paradigm: Comprehension, Production, and Interaction, p. 13). Accordingly, learners watched

videos or listened to audios that showed similar language use or scenario that they will

perform during the task (simulation) in the first session (in the preparation stage: presentation

phase) and then they develop the quality of input as the basis for later production.

Concerning the use of these multimedia mediums, a systematic procedure was used, that

is, the interactive teaching format proposed by Jingyan and Baldauf Jr (2011) (see Chapter

One, Sub-section 1.3 Integrative Teaching Format of Speaking and Listening, p. 34). After

students watched the video or listened to the audio or even read an article, they had the chance

to negotiate their understanding with other students in order to give them the chance to

clarify, paraphrase, verify and confirm understanding. As a helping procedure and to advance

students negotiations, we have provided students with the ready-made expressions they can

use in order to express misunderstanding, confirm and check understanding, and ask for

repetition. Afterwards students were asked to retrieve some expressions related to a given

functional meaning e.g., expressing opinion, agreeing and disagreeing, providing counter

argument, rephrasing, explaining, opening news programme or radio podcast. We have added

some other expressions when necessary. In the second step Jingyan and Baldauf Jr (2011) say

that students put their comprehensible input in practice in the form of different activities

generally group discussions for one main reason; simulations are structured around problem

solving and decision making which mainly take place in discussions. The third step Jingyan

and Baldauf Jr put in their teaching paradox of interactive listening and speaking was applied

in the follow-up discussion as students were appointed to present their evaluation of their

simulation.

136

4.2.6.6 The Language Focus in the Simulations

The six simulations presented in this work, as mentioned earlier, focus on language

function and vocabulary that are generally presented in the form of video, audio or written

sources. The reasons behind emphasizing the functional language over the grammatical

features is that second year students are equipped with the linguistic resources as they already

study grammatical structures in grammar module. Furthermore, the teaching of language

functions forms part of the general movement toward communicative language teaching

(Richards & Rodgers, 1986), besides, language is taught as a means of communication not as

a system of grammatical structures. Noteworthy, functional language goes into line with the

principle of simulation ‘learning by doing’. To support this claim, we review the finocchiaro

and brumfit’s (1983) description of the perspective that led to the development of the

approach: “language was much more appropriately classified in terms of what people wanted

to do with the language (functions) … than in terms of the grammatical items as in traditional

language teaching models” (p. 12). Namely, agreeing, disagreeing, expressing an opinion,

persuading, stating a criticism and commenting are the language functions (production

language skills) which have direct relationship with problem-solving task, according to Jordan

(1997).

The reason for briefing the functional meaning of language is not for restricting the

lexical repertoire of the student when they perform the simulation, but to teach them how to

do things. It is true that briefing the language “may make…students inhibited to say anything

rather than deviate from the forms and patterns of speech practiced” (Jones, 1982, p.38) and

thus they will be plagued by the language used and fail to function in the situation as they

should be; however, the language briefing in this study is meant to shape the students

discourse not to restrict it as they were given set of expression from which they can express

their communicative intent. Furthermore, as some of the simulations required formal language

137

rather than informal, and the situation hinges upon academic and professional contexts, the

language briefing then served to elicit them.

Negotiation devices (reception strategies) such as global reprise (asking for repetition,

rephrasing, or simplification), hypothesis testing (confirmation checks), and lexical gap

(asking for repeating a specific word or item) were also stressed in the preparation stage in

order to help learners solve any communication breakdown while they exchange meaning.

4.2.6.7 The Debriefing

The follow up session which generally follows classroom activities was considered as

the debriefing for the simulations in this study. Students in this session explained what they

did in the simulation and why. A deep analysis of the simulation discourse based on a video

recording was done. We have not focused the analysis on reciting students’ mistakes in the

simulation to avoid their apprehension to perform in the future simulation on Jones (1982)

advices, but rather we have emphasized the language of effective communication, in other

words students’ successful performance was accentuated as much as students’ grammar and

pronunciation mistakes were. Students were involved in the assessment process as they took

equal partnership with the teacher and peers to detect their failure and success in their own

performance. This step was assumed to motivate them, as they are “the best authority on the

subject” (Jones, ibid, p.49), when they discuss their own performance. Besides, students

themselves can create their own portfolio that includes what they know and do not know, in

other words, what they are able to do and what they cannot do.

4.2.6.7.1 Using Video Recording as a Tool of Assessment

Audio-visual instruction has been the most significant tool of input provision in this

study as mentioned earlier. We further used multimedia in the debriefing; consequently, this

instruction is used as a tool of assessment in which learners attain feedback by playing back

138

their performance to gain clear sight of their performance in the simulation. Video-recorded

simulations were used in the follow-up session to give students the chance to watch their own

performance and be able to detect the problems of communication along with their peers and

the teacher (the controller). We have taken this initiation to use video-taping for feedback

provision owing to the pilot study results, and the assertion made by Herbert and Sturtridge

(1979) who say that tape recording of the discussion in the simulation should be viewed and

assessed in the follow-up session. Additionally this initiation is reinforced by the results found

by Murphey and Kenny (1996) who videotaped students’ conversations in a three-times-a-

week class, justifying the use of this instruction by saying that “students are not only learning

strategies and ‘language’ from each other, but … they are learning and appreciating their

attitudes toward English, their effort in studying, an assertive style of talking and questioning,

and appreciative responses” (p. 202). The findings promoted the use of videotaping

instruction, for self-evaluation, because it increases motivation for practice and directs

students to more awareness and noticing how they used the language correctly and

incorrectly. Besides, the teachers become aware of students’ levels and problems that should

be treated in the coming simulations.

4.2.7 Simulation Lesson Model

Simulation Three

Duration: 90 minutes for preparation/ 90 minutes for the simulation/ 90 minutes for the

follow-up.

Topic: radio program

Description:

Students, in this simulation, create their own podcast. Students are encouraged to listen to

different radio programs in order to see how these programs are presented. Students choose

139

the topic they want to talk about.

Before the simulation, students are asked to read newspapers and journals in order to select a

topic to deal with in their podcast.

Aims

Enable students to interview others seeking their experiences and points of view.

Preparation Phase

Duration:1hour and a half

Language Focus

Function: interviewing

Vocabulary: expressions used for starting and ending a broadcast interview and

expressions used check understanding.

Teaching aids

Radio podcast downloaded from www.Bardwellroad.com , a handout explaining ‘How to

Conduct a Podcast Interview’.

Presentation

The teacher presents the theme of the simulation to the students by asking:

What are the topics you want to discuss in a radio program?

Have listened recently to a radio broadcast? What was it about?

Can you use some ideas from the radio programmes you have listened to in your podcast?

Do you read the university magazine? Are there any ideas from the magazine that you may

use in order to organise the content of you radio podcast?

Now, the teacher asks students to listen to a radio broadcast organised by students in

Sinclair University and answer the following questions:

How did the presenter start the interview? (The presenters introduced themselves by name

and the theme of the podcast)

140

“Hi my name is Macarena, my name is Vicky, my name is Gisela, and we are students at

Sinclair’s Oxford. In this show you are going to hear students from GO2 talking about

different cultures”

The teacher gives his students a list of expressions to start and end a broadcast

interview.

Usually, presenters begin their broadcast interviews like this:

We have with us in the studio …

This is …

Miss/Mrs/Mr …welcome to the studio …

We welcome to the studio …

And finish their broadcast by saying:

Mr/Mrs/Ms … thank you for joining us today.

Mr/Mrs/Ms …thank you very much.

And now back to John at the news desk. (Taken from Leo Johns, 1983, p.10)

Practice

The teacher gives students articles about a particular topic and asks them to do the

following:

In pairs, read the documents and summarize the main points in each document.

Then, transform these points in questions (questions about the topic being dealt with).

Pairs exchange the question sheets and evaluate them for each other. To help students discuss

and evaluate the input, the teacher then gives students some expressions they might use to

verify their understanding:

Would I be correct in saying that…?

If I’ve understood you correctly, you’re saying that…?

Correct me if I’m wrong, but…

Am I correct in assuming that…?

Are you saying that…?

Basically, what you’re saying is…

Each pair afterwards interviews other classmates using the prepared questions and the

expressions they learned to open and end an interview and verify their understanding if

141

necessary.

Home work

The teacher asks each pair of students to collect articles or other sources about

university life and its challenges and then do the same as they did in the practice

activity.

Simulation Phase

Duration:1hour and a half

Language Focus

Function: interviewing

Vocabulary: expressions used for starting and ending a broadcast interview, and

expressions to confirm understanding.

Teaching aids

Articles brought by students, headphones, and questions for the interview prepared by

students.

The briefing

Timing: The time of the simulation is one hour and a half; the teacher explains

briefly what will happen in the simulation. There are no role cards as students will

simulate the situation as university students. Students will be given time for audio

(used in the previous session) listening if requested to remind students of radio

broadcast is presented. The teacher ensures that every student knows his/her role and

what he/she has to do. All the former steps are assumed to be done in 10 minutes.

One hour and ten minutes are devoted to the simulation itself.

Classroom arrangement: In the laboratory each pair of students interview other

three students.

142

Production

1. The teacher ensures that the equipment for the podcast (headphones and microphone) is

all set.

2. Then, the first pair takes the place of presenters and the controller chooses three students

from the other group randomly to be interviewed (make sure that these students have done

enough research about the topic students will speak about).

3. The teacher monitors students’ performance and writes down their errors.

4. The radio podcasts are recorded in audio format and videotaped.

Follow-up Session

Duration: one hour and a half

Teaching aids:

Audio recording of the simulation

Procedure:

The students are asked to explain briefly what they did and why.

The students listen to an audio recording of the simulation and then are asked to evaluate the

simulation discourse by asking these questions:

How successful the podcasts were?

What makes you say this simulation is successful?

Did presenters do what they have to do?

What are the language mistakes you notice?

What do you think you have learnt from this simulation?

What would you do differently if you could do the simulation over again?

How is a real life radio programme different from yours? (Questions are taken from Jones

book ‘eight simulations’ (1983).

The students discuss these questions in pairs, listen to each other opinion and evaluate the

radio broadcast they listened to, at the end each group chooses one students to report their

evaluation to the whole class while the other students listen and make comments. This task

helps encourage students to interact, evaluate ideas, and reflect on students’ vision of

communication; consequently the behavioural performance is addressed. The teacher will be

engaged also in the whole group discussion. (This task may take 30 minutes)

143

The teacher will explain language mistakes that are collected by him and by students

(grammar, vocabulary, pronunciation, and communication skills) and suggest some remedial

activities.

4.2.8 Spoken Data Collection Procedure

Spoken data, which is used for assessing students’ speaking and listening proficiency in

this study, is collected through video-recordings. Underhill (1987) points out that recording

learners’ oral performance facilitate the process of the assessment for the flexibility and

several repeated listening opportunities that a tape or a video yield. He adds that to assess

learners’ oral communicative ability, the visual clues are momentous and only the video can

elicit the verbal and non-verbal communicative abilities that constitute oral proficiency (pp.

92-93).

Conclusion

Based on what has been found in the pilot study, some recommendations were

considered in the main investigation. It, consequently, necessitates reflective development of

what interactive listening entails in the instructional framework (simulation), in addition to

some important practical recommendations, like using video-recording, and eliciting the

questionnaires to make them more intelligible. The outcomes of the pilot study have been of

great influence on reshaping the actual experiment. The experimental design is, then,

elaborated; including the nature of the experimental design and a detailed explanation of the

instructional framework. In short, this chapter plays the most significant role to the

understanding of the analysis and discussions of whatever has been reached in the practical

part of this thesis.

CHAPTER FIVE:

STUDENTS’ QUESTIONNAIRE ANALYSIS

Introduction 144

5.1 Description of the Questionnaire 144

5.2 Procedure 146

5.3 Analysis and Discussion of the Results 146

5.3.1 Analysis and Discussion of the Pre-questionnaire Results 146

5.3.2 Analysis and Discussion of Post-questionnaire Results 172

5.4 Interpretation of the Pre-questionnaire Results 192

5.5 Interpretation of Post-questionnaire Results: A comparison of the

Pre/Post Results 194

Conclusion 197

144

Chapter Five: Students’ Questionnaire Analysis

Introduction

In this part of the study, we employed the questionnaire to serve as a needs analysis.

The aim is, then, examining the following enquiries in two different points of time, before and

after the implementation of simulation activities: the second year students’ needs, lacks and

wants, their learning followed-pattern in the classroom, and their views and attitudes towards

the materials and activities implemented in OE classes. Another point of investigation focuses

on the students’ interests and attitudes towards simulation activities. To put it another way,

the students’ appreciation for what has been changed in their learning due to simulations, is

elaborated. The answers to these enquiries will pave the way for testing our second

hypothesis: applying simulation teaching technique would stimulate second year students’

interests and positive attitudes.

5.1 Description of the Questionnaire

Two questionnaires were administered to the participants in this study. A pre-

questionnaire was handed to the students at the beginning of the first semester of the academic

year 2015/2016 while the post-questionnaire was administered at the end of the first semester

of the same academic year. A pre-questionnaire (See Appendix III) seeks for different sorts

of information (as mentioned in Jordan, 1997); present situation analysis (PSA) which

focuses on students’ abilities, resources and views towards speaking/listening

teaching/learning situation (Q3, Q8, Q13, Q14, Q15, Q19, Q21, Q22, Q23), target situation

analysis (TSA) that emphasizes students’ target needs (Q4), and strategy analysis which deals

with students’ needs (Q17), ‘wants’ (Q6, Q 18, Q24) and ‘lacks’ (Q16, Q20). This

questionnaire seeks also historical background of English learning (language skill most

taught, listening materials and speaking activities, and the rate of participation).The results of

145

this questionnaire helped to instruct the appropriate simulation activities in the light of

correspondent participant lacks in the speaking and listening skills for both groups; moreover,

it gave clear insight on learners’ desires about some learning aspects, like participation and

cooperation. Noteworthy, the questions, in the pre-questionnaire were grouped into four

blocks, (in order to help learners answer them in accordance to their aim) each reflecting a

different aspect to be valued: personal profile (age, sex, number of years of studying

English), English education, classroom focus/ materials/ participation (the methodology

employed within the classroom), English speaking and listening proficiency (a self-

evaluation about students’ speaking and listening skills).

The post-questionnaire (See Appendix IV) was organised to meet one main aim which

is analysing students’ perceptions and attitudes towards the implemented programme

(simulation activities) to see whether it satisfied the students’ desires and supplemented their

lacks or not. The findings were assumed to result in students-based evaluation of simulation

activities that included suggested changes to make them more effective for learning to speak

and listen. In this questionnaire, there are two blocks only: learners’ attitudes and

participation (to value students’ attitudes and opinions in accordance to the use of simulation

activities), and English speaking and listening proficiency (to recognise the deferential

between what they knew and what they gain).

Pre-questionnaires contained more items (23) than the post questionnaire (18) as it

additionally aims at seeking the demographic and personal profile of the respondents.

Nevertheless, both questionnaires items are scored on the basis of different scales according

to the nature and the feasibility of the questions. They include dichotomous questions (yes/no,

male/female), while some questions were scored on a two-point scale, going from number 1(if

they can/ or it is true), to 2 (if they cannot/ or it is false). Both pre/post questionnaires consist

of closed-ended questions, namely multiple choice items type. Semantic differential scale is

146

applied in these questionnaires whereby the answers were marked by an ‘X’ between two

extremes, for example ‘Not difficult’ to ‘Very difficult’ and ‘Least favourable’ to ‘Most

desired’. Additionally, some open-ended items, namely, contingency questions, are included

to elicit some questions where the respondents added any piece of information not mentioned

among the options.

5.2 Procedure

The procedure of questionnaire administration is composed of three stages; the first

stage took place before starting the intervention with both experimental groups (at the

beginning of the first semester of the academic year 2015-2016). The pre-questionnaire, in

this stage, was administered to both experimental groups at the same time. The second stage

dealt with the implementation of the intervention. It involved the application of the

experimental design to both experimental groups. In the third and last stage, post-

questionnaire was handed to both research groups simultaneously. The aim was to establish

any students’ communication skills development according to their self-evaluation. Besides,

their motivation and attitudes are considered in which the account for their wants satisfaction

is emphasized. A comparable process, of the pre-/post questionnaires of both experimental

groups, is followed. The aim is to determine the participants’ possible enhancement by using

the same scoring scale and to match both groups’ results seeking identical findings and

investigating any feasible difference.

5.3 Analysis and Discussion of the Results

The data collected is analysed in an attempt to answer the following question:

- Do simulation activities improve the students’ interests and attitudes?

5.3.1 Analysis and Discussion of the Pre-questionnaire Results

Section One: Personal profile

147

The first question investigated the age, along with sex, as it is one of the major factors

that reveal the amount of students’ exposure to the English language throughout their

language learning span. As the study is undertaken within the norms of quasi-experimental

design, the two experimental groups were matched on case-by-case basis according to

students’ speaking and listening proficiency which the amount of exposure to the English

language has the most impact on.

1. Sex: male female Age: …

Options Exp. G.1 Exp. G. 2

N % N %

Male 02 10 06 30

Female 18 90 14 70

Table 2: Students’ personal profile

Sex: Among the forty respondents, eight are male and thirty two are female. This indicates

that girls outnumber boys in the sample assigned in this study.

Age Exp. G.1 Exp. G.2

N % N %

19 02 10 0 0

20 15 75 15 75

21 -23 03 90 05 25

Table 3: Students’ age

Age: The expected age span of second language students is 20 years old, however, in the

sample population there were some exceptional cases (two cases) of 19 years old, in

experimental group 1 (they must be started their education at five years old), four students

aged 21, two aged 22, and two who are aged 23. It is assumed that those who are aged

between 21and 23 either started their education late, repeat one to three years or blocked one

or two years at the university. All in all, the age span of the sample population is between 19

and 23.

2. How long have you been studying English? ……

148

Time Span Exp. G.1 Exp. G.2

N % N %

09 17 85 14 70

10 – 11 03 15 05 25

12 0 0 01 05

Table 4: English learning time span

Along with the age factor, the years students spent on learning English are counted as a

background variable that impacts the dependent variables of this study. Although, students

have already four years tuition in English at the Middle School, three years in the High School

and one year at the university, the results revealed that the majority of students (85% in

experimental group 1 and 70% in experimental group 2) spent nine years studying English.

Only few anonymous cases (03 cases in Exp. G.1 and 05 cases in Exp. G. 2) which spent from

10 to 11 years in studying English, while 01 informant said s/he spent 12 years studying

English. Thus, there was a slight discrimination of the amount of the exposure to the English

Language. Simply put, both experimental groups are approximately matched on the age factor

and the amount of exposure to English.

Section Two: English Education

3. Do you consider English: important unimportant optional

necessary

149

Figure 2: Students’ opinion about the degree of importance of English in both Exp. G.1 and

Exp. G 2

According to Figure 3, the participants in experimental group 1 seem to consider

English language important and necessary as the degree important has an absolute frequency

of 09 (45%), likewise, the degree necessary seems to be the common opinion of 09 other

students. 13 participants (65%) in experimental group 2 perceive English as important, while

07 students claim English as necessary. Thus, 90 % of the Exp. G. 1 and 100% (all the

participants) of the Exp. G. 2 consider English as necessary and important. This result is

expected as students have chosen to study this language at the university among many other

options, thus they really appreciate the English Language.

4. For what reason/s do you think you need to learn English?

a. Future job

b. Further studies

c. Going abroad

d. Writing e-mail or any academic paper

e. Communicating with foreigners via social media (Facebook, twitter, skype, etc.)

f. Tourism (travelling)

45%

10%

45%

Experimental

Group 01

Important Unimportant

Optional Necessary

65%

35%

Experimental

Group 02

150

Other reasons (specify please)

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………

Options Exp. 1 Exp.2

N % N %

a 13 65 16 80

b 03 15 06 30

c 08 40 04 20

d 05 25 0 0

e 05 25 07 35

f 09 45 10 50

Other reasons 0 0 0 0

Table 5: Students’ reasons to learn English

Table 4 reveals that over half of the participants with respective percentage of (65%), in

Exp. G.1, study English for future job, 45% of students need English when travelling for the

purpose of tourism and 40% of participants study English to survive in foreign environment

when they go abroad. Few members of this group, represented by 25%, saw English as a

means to write an e-mail or any academic paper and communicate with foreigners via social

media ( frequency of 05 for each option respectively), while only 03 students study English

for the sake of going further in their studies.

In Exp. G.2, the majority of the students with frequency of 16 believe also that English

is needed in the future job or at least to attain job opportunities. It has been observed that the

half (frequency of 10) of the participants need English for tourism purposes. 07 students

(35%) expressed their will to study English to communicate with foreigners via social media

and 06 other students needed it to attain further studies, while a inconsiderable percentage

(20%) represent those who study English for potential opportunity to go abroad, nobody

151

expressed their need to write an e-mail or any academic paper, besides, no one added any

other reason to study English in both groups.

Section Three: Classroom Focus/Materials/Participation

5. At what frequency the following language skills were taught last year?

Language Skill Always Sometimes Never

Reading

Listening

Writing

Speaking

Options Always Sometimes Never

Exp. G.1 Exp. G.2 Exp. G.1 Exp. G.2 Exp. G.1 Exp. G.2

Reading 05 05 12 12 03 03

Listening 15 07 04 11 01 02

Writing 09 12 11 08 0 0

Speaking 10 13 9 07 01 0

Table 6: The Teaching frequency of language skills

According to the Exp. G. 1 results, listening is the most frequently taught skill as 75%

responded that it was taught always in the preceding year before which this study was

undertaken and 60% of respondents chose the adverb sometimes. Speaking was the second

skill which was taught after listening as reported by half of the respondents (10 respondents

ticked the adverb always) while 09 students opted for the option sometimes. In the same vein,

respondents ranked writing and reading in the third and fourth place respectively, as they were

taught only sometimes, represented by (60%) and (55%) respectively.

However, as far as the experimental group 2 is concerned, 13 participants (65%) said

that speaking was taught always, thus this skills was the main skill taught in OE in their first

year at the university. 12 participants (60%) said that writing was the second skill that was

emphasized, as they opted for the adverb always, while the same percentage was devoted to

reading but it was taught sometimes. Listening was also dealt with sometimes according to 11

152

informants (55%). The results of both groups were so close and indicate the teachers’

concentration on both the speaking and listening skills. However, a discrimination of the

teaching focus on both skills was obvious, according to the findings.

6. According to you, which language skill/s that should have more focus?

…………………………………………………………………………………………………...

Options Reading Listening Writing Speaking

Exp. G.1 07 09 06 13

Exp. G.2 04 09 06 13

Table 7: The Students’ opinion about the most important skill/s to be studied

On one hand, speaking was at the top concerns and desires of the Exp. G. 1 students

with aggregate frequency of 13 (65%), followed by listening as slightly less than a half of

participants (45%) wanted to focus on. Reading and writing seem to come in the bottom

priorities as they are represented by frequency of 07 and 06 respectively. On the other hand,

the participants of the second experimental group seemed to share the same desires as the first

group, demonstrating frequency of 13 (65%) to focus primarily on speaking and frequency of

09 (45%) to focus on listening, while writing was desired to have more focus by only 06

participants (30%) and reading was the utmost desire of 04 participants (20%). It is clear that

the students’ desires come into line with the research focus.

7. What kinds of materials were used in the Oral Expression class last year?

Textbook Handouts Videos Audio recordings

Options Textbook Handouts Videos Audio

recordings

Exp. G.1 05 04 02 19

Exp. G.2 01 05 15 07

Table 8: Materials used in Oral Expression

Table 7 indicates that audio recordings permeated Oral Expression class as 95%,

representing almost all the participants of the Exp. G.1, said that. Concurrent results of the

153

Exp. G. 2 revealed that videos were mostly used in their Oral Expression class, reported by 15

students (75%). The pervasive use of these two materials is probably related to the nature of

the lessons which focused on listening either always or sometimes (see table 5). Handouts and

textbook use was relatively limited in both groups as only small proportion (01, 04 or 05

students) ticked these two options.

8. Did the Oral Expression module help you to improve your English?

Yes No

Options Yes No

N % N %

Exp. G.1 16 80 04 20

Exp. G.2 17 85 03 15

Table 9: The effectiveness of the Oral Expression module in the improvement of English

Participants in both experimental groups were satisfied with the improvement of their

level in English as 80% and 85% in experimental group 1 and 2 respectively reported their

improvement in English. This result is most probably due to the fact that what students want

to study (as revealed in table 6) (the speaking and listening skills) matches what they actually

studied (see table 5), or the materials used were beneficial to the students. Adding to that, they

probably see that the speaking and listening skills have direct and remarkable influence on

their English.We also notice that slighter percentages of participants 4% in Exp. G.1 and 3%

in Exp. G.2 see that their English was not improved.

9. Did you have any chance to speak in English in the classroom last year?

Yes No

Options Yes No

N % N %

Exp. G.1 18 90 02 10

Exp. G.2 18 90 02 10

Table 10: Students’ chance to speak in the classroom

154

Similarly, the majority of participants in both experimental groups (90%) had the

chance to participate in the classroom, while only 02 informants (10%) in both groups

responded negatively. The 10% of participants most probably are introvert students who lack

the incentive to take the risk to speak or be involved in any task.

10. How often did you participate orally in English class?

Always

Often

Rarely

Never

Figure 3: Students’ participation rate

The half of the informants (10) in the Exp. G. 1 responded that they often participated in

the classroom while unsatisfactory percentage (30%) represents those who participated

always. Noteworthy, only 04 informants rarely participated in the classroom. The largest

percentage (45%) represents those who participated often, (40%) with absolute frequency of

08 indicates those who participated always, while only 03 rarely participated, in Exp. G.2.The

results save the researcher the effort to accustom learners to participation in the classroom and

thus all the focus will be on the task itself rather than on how to make students participate in

6

10

4

0

8

9

3

0 0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Always Often Rarely Never

Part

icip

an

ts'

Nu

mb

er

Participation rate

Exp. G. 1

Exp. G. 2

155

the task. Besides, as simulations are based on the engagement of students, their application

will be easier in both groups.

11. What kind of speaking activities did you have in the Oral Expression module last

year?

A. Commenting pictures

B. Retelling a story

C. presenting a research

D. Listening to audio or video materials and then discussing them with partner/s

E. Playing games

If you had other activities, specify them please.

……………………………………………………………………………………………….

Options A B C D E

Exp. G.1 06 03 02 17 03

Exp. G.2 11 11 13 06 10

Table 11: The most frequent speaking activities used in Oral Expression class

In experimental group 1, the largest proportion of the informants 17 (85%) said that

they listened to audio or watched video materials and then discuss it with partner in the Oral

Expression module last year, whereas only 06 participants (30%) reported that they

commented pictures. Presenting a research and speaking games are in the bottom of the

speaking activities list (10% and 15% respectively). The informants added no other activities.

This result is due to the fact that the focus of teaching in Oral Expression in the previous year

was on listening. In the experimental group 2, more than the half (65%), likewise, indicated

that listening to audio or video materials and then discuss the content with a partner was the

main activity used, commenting pictures and presenting a research had also an average use

(according to 11 informants). It is worthy to note that 01 informant said that role play activity

was used and one another informant put that discussion activity was used.

12. What kind of listening material(s) did you mainly have in the Oral Expression class

last year?

156

a. Listening to the teacher

b. Listening to audio materials

c. Watching videos

Options A b c

Exp. G.1 11 18 02

Exp. G.2 16 02 07

Table 12: The most frequent listening materials used in Oral Expression class

Surprisingly, in experimental group 1, listening to audio materials and listening to the

teacher were the main two sources of language input used in the OE class, represented in 18

responses (90%) and 11 frequencies (55%) respectively, while watching video was not most

probably frequent in this class as only 02 respondents (10%) ticked it. The majority in

experimental group 2 said that listening to the teacher was the main source of language input.

Likewise, watching videos was used but not pervasively as reported by 07 informants (35%).

Slight percentage (10%) was devoted to listening to audio materials as it had very limited use

in the classroom. These results imply that learners, the few listening chances they had, were

attuned only to the one-way listening. So, these groups are most required to acquaint with

interactive listening which simulation consequently affords the opportunities to develop.

13. Were this/these material(s) helpful in improving your listening comprehension?

Yes No

Options Yes No

N % N %

Exp. G.1 06 30 14 70

Exp. G.2 05 25 15 75

Table 13: Students’ opinion about the efficacy of listening materials

The informants in both experimental groups (14 in Exp. G.1 and 15 in Exp. G.2) were

not satisfied with the improvement of their listening comprehension ability as, most probably,

listening to audio materials and listening to the teacher were not enough to boost their ability

to listen, though unreliable percentages (30% in Exp. G.1 and 25% in Exp. G.2) represent the

157

positive opinion about listening improvement. The aforementioned interpretation in question

12 may, thereby, well be the reason for the students’ evaluation.

Section Four: English Speaking and Listening Proficiency

14. According to you, being able to speak and listen is:

Very important

Slightly important

Unimportant

Figure 4: The students’ opinion about the importance of being able to speak and listen

Participants in both groups realized the importance of being able to speak and listen as

the largest percentages 90% in Exp. G.1 and 95% in Exp. G. 2 opted for the option very

important. It is surprising that one informant in Exp. G.1 saw the ability to speak and listen

unimportant and very small proportion (01 informant in each group) believed that being able

to speak and listen is slightly important.

15. Tick the best answer according to you for each statement.

90%

5% 5%

Experimental

Group 01

Very

important

Slightly

important

Unimportant

95%

5%

Experimental

Group 02

158

Statement of Ability I can I cannot

a. Be interviewed in English.

b. Express opinion to native speakers in English.

c. Solve misunderstanding problems.

d. Make enquiries about anything in English.

e. Engage in spontaneous authentic conversation

in English with native speakers.

f. Ask for clarification in English.

g. Complain in English.

h. Ask for and give directions.

i. Present an academic paper in English.

j. Make decision in English.

k. Make suggestions.

l. Agree and disagree in English.

m. Persuade others in English.

n. Greet others and introduce yourself in formal

situations.

Exp. G.1 Exp. G.2

Options I can I cannot I can I cannot

a 17 03 17 03

b 09 11 14 06

c 13 07 15 05

d 05 15 07 13

e 10 10 06 14

f 17 03 15 05

g 15 05 12 08

h

i

g

k

l

m

n

12

13

17

18

17

10

14

08

07

03

02

03

10

06

16

08

19

19

19

14

15

04

12

01

01

01

06

05

159

Table 14: Students’ listening and speaking abilities

Informants in Exp. G.1 were confident about statement (15.k) (frequency of 18 (90%)),

statements (15.a), (15.f), (15.j), (15.l) (frequency of 17 (85%) representing each of the former

abilities), statement (15.g) (the option ‘I can’ was chosen by 15 informants (75%)), statement

(15.n) (14 students (70%) opted for ‘I can’), Statement (15. c) (13 students (65%) ticked the

option ‘I can’), and statement (15.h) ( 12 respondents (60%) opted for ‘I can’). But they also

confirmed their disability concerning statement (15.d) (15 students (75%) said ‘I cannot’),

statement (15.i) (13 students (65%) chose ‘I cannot’), statement (15.b) (collected 11 ‘I cannot’

(55%) opted for ‘I cannot’), statement (15.e), and statement (15.m) (‘I cannot’ was selected

by half of the students (50%)).

In the same vein, almost all the informants in Exp. G. 2 expressed their ability to make

decision (15.j), make suggestion (15.k), agree and disagree (15.l) (19 informants (95%) said ‘I

can’), ask for and give directions (15.h) (16 respondents (80% said ‘I can’), solve

misunderstanding problems (15.c), greet others (15.n), ask for clarification (15.f) (frequency

of 15 (75%) representing each) and complain (15.g) (collected 12 positive responses (60%)).

Unlike the informants of Exp. G.1, the majority of informants in this group seemed also to be

able to express opinion (15.b) and persuade others (15.m) as reported by (70%). The

remaining capabilities were the disabilities of the informants as 14 participants (70%) said

that they cannot engage in spontaneous authentic conversation (15.e), 13 (65%) confessed

their disability to make enquiries (15.d) and 12 informants (40%) were not able to present an

academic paper (15.i). A clear and firm command over functional language use is interpreted

through these results. The disabilities in both groups which denote weakness in dealing with

the illocutionary act are tangible in this table and require absolute focus in the simulations.

16. If you have difficulties in speaking, what are the aspects that prevent you from

speaking (Classify them according to the scale (1 to 5) of difficulty).

160

Experimental Group 1Results

Speaking

Aspect

Difficulty

Not

Difficult

Slightly

difficult

Averagely

difficult

Difficult

Very

difficult

a 0 05 12 03 0

b 02 05 06 04 03

c 02 04 06 05 03

d 03 05 07 04 01

e 02 05 09 03 01

f 02 05 05 03 05

g 08 05 01 03 03

h 06 02 04 07 01

Table 15: Students’ speaking difficulties in experimental group 1

Fluency: all the students revealed a struggle with fluency as12 informants (60%) considered

it average difficult, 03 informants (15%) found difficulties in fluency, while the remaining

informants (25%) saw it slightly difficult.

Speaking Aspect

Difficulty

Not

difficult

Slightly

difficult

Averagely

difficult

Difficult Very

difficult

a. Fluency

b. Pronunciation

c. Fear of making mistakes

d. Inability to express clear

ideas

e. Grammar

f. Lack of vocabulary

g. Class atmosphere (group

size and noise)

h. Time shortage

Any other aspect?

…………………………….

161

Pronunciation: over than the half of informants (13) saw pronunciation difficult (raging from

the adjective average to the adverb very), while 07 respondents (35%) considered it of

alternative difficulty ranging from not difficult (frequency of 02) to slightly difficult

(frequency of 05).

Fear of mistakes: basically, 06 participants (30%) experienced average fear of mistakes

when approximate half (40%) considered fear of mistakes as causing difficulty in speaking.

Only 06 respondents (30%) revealed their courage to face their mistakes (02 saw this fear as

not difficult and 04 saw it slightly difficult).

Inability to express clear ideas: 08 informants (40%) reported that inability to express clear

ideas does not have extreme difficulty in their speaking, 07 participants (35%) said that it has

average influence and 05 others (25%) considered this problem difficult and even very

difficult.

Grammar: over the half of the participants (65%) had difficulties in grammar (09 informants

opted for the adjective ‘averagely difficult’, 03 selected ‘difficult’, and 01 chose ‘very

difficult’), while 07 informants (35%) considered it slightly (25%) and not difficult (10%).

Lack of vocabulary: more than the half (65%) have shortage of vocabulary (represented by

sum frequency of 13= 05 opted for ‘averagely difficult’+ 03 said ‘difficult’ + 05 chose ‘very

difficult’). The other 07 respondents (sum percentage of 35%) have an acceptable range of

vocabulary.

Class atmosphere (group size and noise):13 participants (65%) feel that noise and group

size have very small (slight) (or even zero i.e., not difficult) impact on their speaking, while

(35%) see that noise and group size hindered their speaking as 01 participant reported that

they cause average difficulty, 03 students put them as difficult and the remaining 03

informants chose the description ‘very difficult’.

162

Time shortage: 12 informants (60%) declared that time shortage devalues their speaking. A

slighter percentage (40%) saw that time shortage causes minimum difficulty.

- Worth noting, one student considered shyness a problem when speaking as s/he classified

it as very difficult. Another respondent (05%) saw intonation (as distinctive feature of

pronunciation) ‘very difficult’ too.

Experimental Group 2 Results

Speaking

Aspect

Difficulty

Not

difficult

Slightly

difficult

Averagely

difficult

Difficult

Very

difficult

a 05 02 10 02 01

b 05 11 02 01 01

c 03 03 07 01 06

d 03 09 06 01 01

e 05 08 03 03 01

f 04 02 04 07 03

g 06 02 05 05 02

h 03 06 06 0 05

Table 16: Students’ speaking difficulties in experimental group 2

Fluency: 13 informants (65%) said that fluency is of alternative difficulty (half of the

participants put it ‘average difficult’, 03 considered ‘difficult ‘and 01 ‘very difficult’), while

the remaining (35%) is distributed between slightly difficult (02 informants (10%)) and not

difficult (05 participants (25%)).

Pronunciation: very slighter percentage of informants (20%) reported that pronunciation

causes difficulty to them (02 informants chose ‘averagely difficult’, 01 participants opted for

‘difficult’ and another chose ‘very difficult’. It is also indicated that more than the half (80%)

saw pronunciation of slight difficulty (11 informants) and even of no difficulty (05

informants).

163

Fear of mistakes: basically, 14 participants (sum percentage of 70%) experienced average to

extreme fear of mistakes when less than a half (08 participants (40%)) considered fear of

mistakes as causing slighter difficulty in speaking.

Inability to express clear ideas: 8 informants (40%) reported that inability to express clear

ideas is ‘averagely difficult’ (06 informants), ‘difficult’ (frequency 01) and even ‘very

difficult’ (frequency 01), and 60% said that it has slight difficulty (frequency of 09) and even

some (frequency of 3) considered it as not difficult at all.

Grammar: Only 7informants (35%) reported their failure in grammar because they saw it as

average (03 informants) to very difficult (01 participant). Basically over the half of the

participants (65%) had no difficulties in grammar as it collected 08 ‘slightly difficult’ and 05

‘not difficulty’.

Lack of vocabulary: more than the half (70%) suffer from shortage of vocabulary

(represented by sum frequency of 14). The other 6 respondents (sum percentage of 30%) have

an acceptable range of vocabulary as they see it either slightly difficult or not difficult.

Class atmosphere (group size and noise): 12 participants (60%) put noise and group size in

the classifications: 05 ‘averagely difficult’, 05 ‘difficult’, and 02 ‘very difficult’, while 40%

see that noise and group size do not disturb them.

Time shortage: 11 informants (55%) said that time shortage causes from average to extreme

difficulty when speaking. A slighter percentage (45%) is devoted to the descriptions; ‘slightly

difficult’ and ‘not difficult’.

- No one has provided any other aspect that cases difficulty while speaking.

17. Do you think you need speaking reinforcement courses?

Yes No

164

Options Yes No

N % N %

Exp. G.1 19 95 01 05

Exp. G.2 18 90 02 10

Table 17: Students’ need for speaking reinforcement courses

Participants in both experimental groups expressed strong desire towards speaking

reinforcement courses as the majority (95% in Exp. G.1 and 90% in Exp. G. 2) answered

‘yes’. This is most probably due to the fact that students suffer from many linguistic-related

issues as it was pointed out in the previous question. Whereas, only one informant (05%) in

Exp. G.1 and 02 others in Exp. G. 2 feel no need for speaking reinforcement courses.

18. What kind of activities would you like to have in order to reinforce your speaking

skill?(Order the following activities from 1 the least favourable to 5 the most desired)

Speaking Activity

Students’ Desire

Least

favourable

Slightly

favourable

Averagely

favourable

Desired Most

desired

a. Oral interview

b. Picture description

c. Information gap (one

person has information

and his partner does not,

the information should

be described in details

via physical objects, and

a linguistic command of

colours, shape, sizes,

directions and

sequences)

d. Story/text Retelling

e. Improvisation/Role

play/simulation (playing

out scenarios)

f. Oral reports

g. Debates

165

h. Discussion

i. Presentation of a given

topic

Others please; specify

Experimental Group 1 Results

Speaking Activity

Students’ Desire

Least

favourable

Slightly

favourable

Averagely

favourable

Desired

Most

desired

a 01 07 05 05 02

b 05 05 04 05 01

c 02 07 07 02 02

d 04 04 05 06 01

e 04 05 06 04 01

f 04 08 03 05 0

g 03 05 05 06 01

h 04 0 08 03 05

i 02 02 08 05 03

Table 18: Students’ favourite activities (experimental group 1)

Oral interview: we cannot define oral interview as the most favourable activity as it collected

07 ‘slightly favourable’ and 01 ‘least favourable’, whereas, only 05 informants (25%)

averagely favoured this activity. Less than a half (35%) desired and even strongly desired this

activity. These results are possibly due to students’ confidence about being able to be

interviewed in English (85%) as assumed in question 15.

Picture description: The half of the participants (the sum frequency of 10) expressed from

weak to very weak desire to describe picture or story, while the other half (04 students see this

activity as average favourable, 05 see it desired, and only 01 subject sees it as most desired)

considered this activity according to fluctuating desire.

Information gap: less than a half (45%) did not really favour this activity as 07 informants

opted for ‘slightly favourable’ and 02 selected ‘least favourable’, but over the half (55%)

166

wanted this activity from averagely (collected 07 responses) to mostly desired (collected 02

responses).

Story/text Retelling: 12 subjects (60%) considered this activity as ‘average favourable’ as

reported by 05 participants (25%) to ‘desired’ as declared by 06 participants (30%), but,

worth noting, only 01 subject (05%)mostly desired this activity.

Improvisation/Role play/simulation (playing out scenarios): 11 wanted (55%) to have this

activity (as 30% said they are ‘average favourable’, 20% said they are ‘desired’, and only

(05%) put them as most ‘desired’), but the remaining 09 informants (45%) considered them as

least or slightly favourable.

Oral reports: over the half (sum of 08 ‘slight favourable’ (40%) and 04 ‘least favourable’

(20%)) did not really want to have oral reports about any subject. This is probably due to the

fact that students feel unable to present any topic in front of others as it was pointed out by

65% of subjects in question 15. However, 08 informants (40%) liked this activity (represented

by 3 informants who opted for ‘average favourable’ and 05 who said that these reports are

‘desired’).

Debates: over quarters of informants (07 participants (35%)) favoured and strongly desired

this activity, while quarter (frequency of 05) averagely wanted this activity and 15% of

informants (frequency of 03) put it in the bottom of their favourites. This result encouraged

the implementation of debate in simulation (see simulation 6).

Discussion: very slight proportion of students disliked discussions (frequency of 04 collected

to ‘least favourable’), 08 participants (40%) said similarly that they are average favourable

and most desired.

167

Presentation of a given topic: since students were afraid of presenting academic paper as

represented by (65%) (see question 15), it is expected to find the majority of subjects (80%)

averagely to mostly desire this kind of activity. We can confidently say that students are

aware of the importance of this practice which will lead to developing their presentation skills

later on in official academic presentation. In addition to the former results, among the (35%)

of subjects who said (in question 15) they are able to present academic paper, 20% did not

express their strong desire to have this activity.

- Worth mentioning, 01 informant (05%) declared his strong desire to narrate story of a

movie in OE class.

Experimental Group 2Results

Speaking Activity

Students’ Desire

Least

favourable

Slightly

favourable

Averagely

favourable

Desired

Most

desired

a 03 03 07 04 03

b 08 03 02 04 03

c 03 05 06 02 04

d 02 04 06 06 02

e 06 02 05 02 05

f 02 05 06 05 02

g 03 07 03 03 04

h 02 03 02 05 08

i 03 01 01 07 08

Table 19: Students’ favourite activities (experimental group 2)

Oral interview: approximately the same proportion of informants split their views between

two extremes; desired (07 students) and not desired (06 students); whereas 07 informants

(35%) said that they averagely want this activity.

Picture description: this activity seems to have no preference among the participants;

11informants who represent more than the half (55%) liked it slightly or the least, in contrast

168

07 participants favoured this activity considerably (04 ticked the option ‘desired’ and 03

ticked ‘most desired’). However, only 02 participants (10%) said they averagely favour it.

Information gap: less than a half (40%) put this activity in the bottom of their desire (03

‘least desired’ and 05 ‘slightly desired). Other 06 informants (30%) expressed medium

appreciation of it while 6 subjects really would like to have this activity (02 ‘desired’ and 04

‘most desired’).

Story/text Retelling: almost the majority (14 participants who represent 70%) of the group

(the sum of 30% in average option, 10% of desired, and 20% in most desired option) put that

they appreciate this activity. The remaining slighter proportion (the sum of 10% in least

favourable option and 20% in slightly favourable option) claimed that this activity is not what

they really would like to have in the classroom.

Improvisation/Role play/simulation (playing out scenarios): like Exp. G.1, there seems a

polarization of informants’ opinion as the 12 informants (60%) wanted to have this activity

(as 25% said they are average favourable, 10% said they are desired, and only 25% put them

as most desired), but the other 08 informants (40%) considered them as least or slightly

favourable.

Oral reports: Except for 07 participants, all the other participants wanted to deal with this

activity as 06 participants (30%) rated it as ‘average favourable’, 05 others (25%) put as

‘desired’ and only 10% that is to say 02 participants said it is the ‘most desired’ activity.

Debates: the participants views were divided into two opinions; 10 informants (50%) did not

really favour this activity (07 favourite it slightly and 03 liked it the least), and the other 10

informed that they would like to have it (03 informants ‘averagely’ want it, other 03 ‘desire’ it

and 04 students said they ‘most desire’ it).

169

Discussion: the majority of the students (75%) seem to agree on approving discussion in their

classroom (08 ticked ‘most desired’, 05 opted for ‘desired’ and 02 selected ‘averagely

desired’), while small proportion (25%) seem not interested in this activity (it collected 03

‘slightly favourable’ and 02 ‘least favourable’).

Presentation of a given topic: 80% of informants would like to present academic paper

while 20% disapproves it. We ca then say that the majority of the students, including the 08

students who confessed their disability to perform this activity (see question 15), liked to

reinforce their presentation skills.

19. How can you assess your ability in listening to English? (tick off the right answer)

Very good

Good

Average

Weak

Very weak

Options Very good Good Average Weak Very weak

Exp. G.1 02 05 09 04 0

Exp. G.2 01 07 11 01 0

Table 20: Students’ assessment of their listening ability

The results shown in this table support the results of table 05. Despite the fact that 75%

of participants reported that listening was taught always in the previous year, less than the half

of the students (45%) (Frequency of 09) think that they have average level in listening and 07

informants (35%) reported that they are good or very good in listening, while insufficient

number of students (04) ticked the adjective ‘weak’, in the Exp. G. 1. Likewise, over the half

(55%) believed also that they have average level in listening and 08 students (40%) think that

they are good or very good in listening, whereas only 01 informant (05%) opted for ‘weak’.

the results imply the fact that informants in both groups were of a medium level in listening.

170

This is arguably due to that listening was taught only sometimes or what has been taught in

listening did not satisfy students’ needs and lacks.

20. Do you like watching videos and listening to audio recordings in the classroom to

help you boost your listening proficiency?

Yes No

Options Yes No

N % N %

Exp. G.1 04 20 16 80

Exp.G.2 16 80 04 20

Table 21: Students’ opinion about watching videos and listening to audio recordings

Though listening was taught always in OE class in Exp. G.1 (see question 5), they

expressed their weak desire to watch videos and listening to audio recordings as only 04

students 20% liked these materials, while 80% did not. This may well be the result of

students’ disappointment about the effectiveness of listening materials they had in the

previous year in enhancing their listening. In the contrary, in exp. group 2, the majority (16

students (80%)) approved these materials and 04 participants (20%) disapproved them.

21. Inside the classroom, do you like to do activities:

Individually

In pairs

In small group

In large group

Options Individually In pairs In small group In large group

Exp. G.1 04 05 14 01

Exp. G.2 03 05 15 0

Table 22: Students’ learning pattern in the classroom

Cooperative learning was desired by learners, in Exp. G.1, because 14 informants (70%)

liked doing the activities in small group, 05 students (25%) like pair work, and 01 student

wants working in large group, while individual work was desired by only 04 students (20%).

171

The same conclusion is drawn from the results of Exp. G. 2, more than the half (75%) liked

also small group work, 5 students supported pair work, whereas, 03 would like doing their

activities individually.

22. In real-life situations, different problems may occur which need an immediate

decision making to solve them. Sometimes problem solving or decision making may

need interaction with others. Are you able to interact with others in English to solve

real-life problems (e.g., disagreement in a panel) or make decisions (e.g., decide on

the best way to improve the speaking skill with classmates)?

Yes No

Options Yes No

N % N %

Exp. G.1 16 80 04 20

Exp. G.2 18 90 02 10

Table 23: Students’ ability to solve real-life problems and make decisions

Informants in both groups think that they are able to interact with others in English to

solve real-life problems or make decisions ( 16 informants (80%) said ‘Yes’ and 04 said ‘No’

in Exp. G.1 and 18 informants (90%) put ‘Yes’ while 02 ticked ‘No in Exp. G.2). The

participants contradicted themselves when they said ‘Yes’ as they have already contended that

they are unable to engage in spontaneous conversation, express opinion and persuade others

(the abilities needed to solve problems and make decisions) (see table 13).

23. Do you like courses that prepare you for such situations?

Yes No

Options Yes No

N % N %

Exp. G.1 18 90 02 10

Exp. G.2 19 95 01 05

Table 24: Students’ desire to be prepared for real-life interactions

In spite of the fact that the majority of both groups said they are able to interact with

others in English to solve real-life problems (e.g., disagreement in a panel) or make decisions

172

(e.g., decide on the best way to improve the speaking skill with classmates), almost the entire

groups (80% of Exp. G.1 and 95% of Exp. G.2) showed enthusiasm for learning how to

perform in real-life situations which will then prepare them for the real ones in the future, but

only 03 students in both groups (02 in Exp. G.1 and 01 in Exp. G. 2) disliked whatever course

that might prepare them for such situations. With regard to these results, students in both

groups seem to be aware of the necessities of the edification of the real world communication

needs and willing to invest their effort to acquaint themselves with its necessities.

5.3.2 Analysis and Discussion of Post-questionnaire Results

Section One: Learners’ attitudes/participation

1. Did the Oral Expression class in the last semester help you to improve your speaking

skill?

Yes No

Options Yes No

N % N %

Exp. G.1 19 95 01 05

Exp. G.2 18 90 02 10

Table 25: Students’ opinion about their speaking improvement

According to the informants (19 in Exp. G. 1 and 18 in Exp. G.2), their speaking is

enhanced. Unnoticeable percentages (05%) and (10%) represent the proportion (01 informant

in Exp. G. 1 and 02 in Exp. G.2) which believed in no improvement in their speaking.

2. Do you feel you had more chance to speak in the classroom during the simulations you

had in the last semester, more than last year?

Yes No

Options Yes No

N % N %

Exp. G.1 14 70 06 30

Exp. G.2 15 75 05 25

Table 26: Students’ chance to speak in English in the classroom during the simulations

173

Over the half of the informants, 14 (70%) in Exp. G. 1 and 15 (75%) in Exp. G. 2, said

that they had more chance to speak in English more than the last year, while the remaining

students believed the opposite. Considering the respondents’ answers about this question in

the pre-questions (the majority of the students had the chance to speak in the previous year),

simulations then are proved to provide tangible and rich opportunities for speaking and do not

hinder students’ speaking time.

3. How often did you participate orally in English class in this semester?

Always

Often

Rarely

Never

Figure 5: Students’ participation rate after the intervention

Half of the participants (50%) (Frequency of 10 compared to 6 in the pre-questionnaire),

in Exp. G.1, responded that they always participated in the classroom and 09 (compared to 10

in the pre-questionnaire) said they often participated, only 01 student (they were 04 students

in the pre-questionnaire) rarely engaged in activities. It is noticed, in Exp. G. 2, that 08

participants who participated always (in the pre-questionnaire) became 12, and 9 who often

10 9

1 0

12

7

1 0 0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Always Often Rarely Never

Part

icip

an

ts'

Nu

mb

er

Participation rate

Exp. G. 1

Exp. G. 2

174

participated became 07 and only 01 instead of 3 (as mentioned in the pre-questionnaire)

rarely involved in the activities.

4. Did you have simulation activities of the same kind last year?

Yes No

Options Yes No

N % N %

Exp. G.1 1 05 19 95

Exp. G.2 06 30 14 70

Table 27: The presence of simulations in the classroom in the previous year

In the experimental group 1, nearly 95% of informants were unfamiliar with simulation

activities with one exceptional case which opted for ‘yes’. In the counterpart group, 06

respondents seemed familiar with simulations, whereas 14 (70%) participants seemed not.

Thus, briefing of simulation is crucially needed at the beginning of the experiment.

5. How can judge the simulation activities you had in the first semester?

Highly interactive

Interactive

Not interactive at all

Options Highly interactive Interactive Not interactive at all

Exp. G.1 03 17 0

Exp. G.2 05 14 01

Table 28: Students’ view about the interactive nature of simulation activities

All the informants (20) in both groups confirmed the interactive nature of simulations.

17 students (85%) ticked interactive and 3 (15%) ticked highly interactive, in experimental

group 1. In the other experimental group, 14 (70%) respondents claimed that simulations are

interactive and 5 (25%) said they are highly interactive while Diminutive proportion

(constitutes 1 student) considered them as not interactive at all.

6. What is your opinion about these activities? Are they:

175

Very useful

Useful

Useless

Very useless

Options Very useful Useful Useless Very useless

Exp. G.1 05 14 01 0

Exp. G.2 09 09 02 0

Table 29: Students’ opinion about the usefulness of simulation activities

Informants in both groups appreciated the simulation activities as 19 informants (the

sum of 14 informants (70%) who considered them useful and 05 informants (25%) who said

they are very useful) confessed their usefulness, in Exp. G. 1 and 18 informants (90%) noticed

their usefulness (the sum of equal responses (09 responses) representing those who considered

them useful and very useful), in Exp. G. 2. A slighter proportion of the experimental group 2

(frequency of 2) saw simulation activities as useless.

7. How much did you enjoy the simulation activities?

Very much

Much

Not really

Not at all

Options Very much Much Not really Not at all

Exp. G.1 04 12 04 0

Exp. G.2 06 12 02 0

Table 30: Students’ enjoyment in the simulation

In both groups, 12 informants (60%) enjoyed the simulation much. However, in

experimental group 1, equivalent proportion of opinions (04 opinions (20%)) is devoted to

very much and not really. Besides, in Exp. G. 2, 6 informants (30%) enjoyed very much the

simulations, while 2 out of 20 subjects did not really enjoy them. This implies the good

impact simulations leaves in OE class.

8. Please choose which of the following claims is true or false for you? (tick off the right

column)

176

Claim True False

a. My self- confidence increased because I worked in

pairs and small group during simulation activities.

b. I feel less embarrassed, nervous and hesitant when I

try to speak in English in front of the class.

c. I am not afraid of making mistakes in front of the

class.

d. I feel motivated after simulation activities.

e. Because of interaction during simulation activities, my

speaking mistakes are reduced.

f. My problem solving skills are developed after

simulation activities.

g. I liked the interaction with my classmates in different

contexts during simulation activities.

h. I am able to use different communication skills like

journalism, making speech, chairmanship, analysis,

and oratory.

i. I am able to listen and understand whoever speaks in

English.

j. I can use the spoken grammar correctly (ellipsis,

repetition, reduced forms…etc.).

k. I can properly use the correct register (formal vs.;

informal).

Exp. G.1 Exp. G.2

Options True False True False

a 19 01 20 0

b 14 06 15 05

c 12 08 18 02

d 17 03 16 04

e 17 03 18 02

f 14 06 16 04

g 20 0 16 04

h 10 10 14 06

i 12 08 17 03

j 06 14 15 05

k 13 07 11 09

177

Table 31: True/False claims

According to this table, experimental group 1 informants confirmed the majority of the

statements to be true for them; all of them (20 students (100%)) approved interaction through

statement (8.g), almost all the group (19 informants (95%)) confessed that their self-

confidence increased (8.a) because they worked in pairs and small group during simulation

activities, 17 informants (85%) opted for ‘true’ for statements (8.d)and(8.c), and nearly three

quarters (70%) agreed on validating statements (8.b) and (8.f). Moreover, over the half (12

informants (60%)) were able to listen and understand whoever speaks in English (8.i) and use

the right register (8.k) as reported by 13 informants, while only the half of the students

declared their ability for statement (8.h). Nevertheless, many students (14) ticked ‘False’ for

statement (8.j).

In the experimental group 2, all the informants opted for ‘true’ for statement (8.a), 18

informant (90%) said that they were not afraid of making mistakes (statement 8.c), while 17

informants (85%) and 16 informants (80%) approved statements (8.i), (8.d), (8.f), and (8.g)

respectively. In the same group, unlike Exp. G. 1, three quarters (75%) approved the

statements (8.j) and (8.b).Similar to group 1, 14 participants (70%) ticked the option ‘False’

for statement (8. h). 09 participants (45%) think that they cannot properly use the correct

register (formal vs.; informal) (statement 8.k) while over the half (11 informants (55%))

ticked the option ‘true’.

Section Two: English Speaking and Listening Proficiency

9. Tick the best answer according to you for each statement.

Statement of ability I can I cannot

a. Be interviewed in English.

b. Express opinion to native speakers in English.

c. Solve misunderstanding problems.

178

d. Make enquiries about anything in English.

e. Engage in spontaneous authentic conversation

in English with native speakers.

f. Ask for clarification in English.

g. Complain in English.

h. Ask for and give directions in English

speaking country.

i. Present an academic paper in English.

j. Make decision in English.

k. Make suggestions.

l. Agree and disagree in English.

m. Persuade others in English.

n. Greet others and introduce yourself in formal

situations.

Exp.G.1 Exp.G.2

Options I can I cannot I can I cannot

a 15 05 17 03

b 13 07 18 02

c 10 10 14 06

d 09 11 08 12

e 04 16 09 11

f 20 0 15 05

g 17 03 19 01

h 18 02 16 04

i 11 11 10 10

j 18 02 20 0

k 20 0 20 0

l 20 0 20 0

m 18 02 17 03

n 15 05 18 02

Table 32: Students’ speaking and listening abilities

Most of the students seemed to have consensus about their abilities concerning the

majority of the statements: statements (9.c), (9.i), (9.b), (9.a), (9.n), (9.g), (9.h), (9.j), and

(9.m) collected 10, 11, 13, 15, 15, 17, 18, 18, and 18 ‘I can’ responses respectively. Besides,

statements (9.f), (9.k), (9.l) collected 20 ‘I can’. This high level of responses agreement shows

179

students’ high command over speaking and listening. In the same group, 16 students (80%)

ticked ‘I cannot’ to describe their ability about statement (9.e) and 11 informants (55%) opted

for the same answer for statement (9.d)

Likewise, there seems that informants in experimental group 2 share the same abilities

as Exp. G. 1. Most students cover the same abilities as the students in other group do,

statements (9.i), (9.c), (9.f), (9.h), (9.a), (9.m), (9.b), (9.n), and (9.g) collected 10, 14, 15, 16,

17, 17, 18, 18, and19 ‘I can’ responses respectively. Additionally, statements (9.j), (9.k), (9.l)

collected 20 ‘I can’.Many informants seem to agree on their inability about statements (9.d)

and (9.e) (both collected 12 and 11 responses).

10. You have dealt with many oral activities during the years you have been learning

English. What kind of activities would you like to have in order to reinforce your

speaking and listening skills? (Order the following activities from 1 the least

favourable to 5 the most desired)

Speaking Activity

Students’ Desire

Least

favourable

Slightly

favourable

Averagely

favourable

Desired Most

desired

a. Oral interview

b. Picture description

c. Information gap (one person

has information and his

partner does not, the

information should be

described in details via

physical objects, and a

linguistic command of

colors, shape, sizes,

directions and sequences)

d. Story/text Retelling

e. Improvisation/Role

play/simulation (playing out

scenarios)

f. Oral reports

g. Debates

180

h. Discussion

i. Presentation of a given topic

Others please; specify

……………………………..

Experimental Group 1 Results

Speaking Activity

Students’ Desire

Least

favourable

Slightly

favourable

Averagely

favourable

Desired Most

desired

a 01 04 12 01 02

b 01 05 08 05 01

c 01 10 06 03 0

d 0 04 08 04 04

e 0 03 03 07 07

f 03 07 06 04 0

g 05 04 05 03 03

h 03 07 07 02 01

i 05 07 06 0 02

Any other aspect 0 0 0 0 0

Table 33: Students’ avourite activities (experimental group 1)

Oral interview: It appears in this table that over the half averagely favoured this activity as it

collected 12 responses (60%), while 5 students put it as slightly or the least favourable.

However, only 03 students expressed their desire to have this activity.

Picture description: Surprisingly, the informants’ desires have been altered, the half (50%)

who supported (put it as average favourable, desired and most desired) this activity became

(70%) (Frequency of 14), and 30% sill have the same point of view, in spite of the fact that

simulations used in this study did not include any picture or story description.

Information gap: The half (45%) did not really appreciate this activity, while 06 informants

(30%) said it is average favourable and very slighter proportion (frequency of 3) was devoted

to desired option.

181

Story/text Retelling: unlike the pre-questionnaire results: 08 subjects (40%) considered

this activity as average favourable, the same proportion is provided in desired and most

desired options, but worth noting, only 4 subjects (20%) slightly desired this activity.

Improvisation/Role play/simulation (playing out scenarios): these results are approximate

to the pre-questionnaire ones as 16 students (80%) wanted to have these activities and after

they have them, the majority of the students (17), except for 3 subjects, desired them. Worth

mentioning, frequency of 14 is devoted to both desired and most desired options.

Oral reports: The half (sum of 35% and 15%) did not really want to have oral reports about

any subject as 07 students considered them slightly favoured and other 03 put them in the

least favoured list. It is also shown in this table that 06 students (30%) averagely wanted to

have this activity and only few students (4) desired it.

Debates: only one student among 12 (60%) who determined this activity as average desired

and desired before the intervention- seems to change his opinion to consider them ‘average

favourable’(5 responses) and ‘desired’ and ‘most desired’ (03 ticks in each), while less than

half (45%) put them either ‘least favourable’ (collected 05 responses) or ‘slightly favourable’

(collected 04 answers).

Discussion: unexpectedly 6 informants (30%) seem to change their desire as they said that

this activity is not favourable to a large extent, that is to say the total number of those who

disapproved discussion became 10. The other 10 informants reported their favour of this

activity.

Presentation of a given topic: after the intervention less than the half (40%) desired

discussion since 6 students put this activity under the average favourable option and only

2students strongly liked it. Thereby, 60% did not like this activity.

182

Experimental Group 2 Results

Speaking Activity

Students’ Desire

Least

favourable

Slightly

favourable

Averagely

favourable

Desired Most

desired

a 01 04 10 03 02

b 03 01 08 07 01

c 02 04 08 05 01

d 03 03 08 06 0

e 0 0 03 09 08

f 01 08 05 04 02

g 04 06 06 01 03

h 01 05 07 05 02

i 04 02 06 05 03

Table 34: Students’ favourite activities (experimental group 2)

Oral interview: the students kept the same point of view concerning this activity as over the

half (75%) expressed their average desire (opted for by 10 informants), desire (opted for by

03 informants) and most desire (chosen by 02 participants) to have this activity, while only

25%, frequency of 5, is devoted to slightly desired and least favourable options.

Picture description: the informants, unexpectedly also, changed their opinion before the

intervention as more than the half (55%) who said that they do not really favour this task,

according to this table 80% really wanted to have it and 45% of informants, who did not

desire it, became 20%.

Information gap: the proportion that favoured this activity seemed to be increased to reach

frequency of 14 (70%) as 08 informants start liking it averagely, 04 slightly wanted it and 02

others considered it the least favourable, while the proportion that disproved it decreased to 06

frequencies (30%).

Story/text Retelling: almost the majority (70%) of the group (the sum of 08 responses (40%)

average favourable and 06 responses (30%) for desired) put that they appreciate this activity.

183

The remaining slighter proportion (the sum of 03 ticks (15%) in least favourable option and

03 others in slightly favourable option) pointed out that this activity is not what they really

would like to have in the classroom.

Improvisation/Role play/simulation (playing out scenarios): All the informants approved

these activities (as 03 informants (15%) said they averagely favour them, 09 informants

(45%) consider them desired and other 08 (40%) put them as most desired).

Oral reports: the 7 participants (35%) who did not really want to have this activity before the

implementation of simulation activities became 9 (45%), while all the other participants (11)

wanted to deal with this activity as 25% rated it as average favourable, 20% put as desired and

only 10 percent said it is their most desired activity.

Debates: the participants, according to this table, have kept their views which were divided

into two opinions –as revealed in the pre-questionnaire; 10 informants did not really favour

this activity, and the other 10 informed that they would like to have it (6 informants averagely

wanted it, other 01desired it and 03 students said they most desired it).

Discussion: almost similarly, these results match the pre-questionnaire results; the majority of

the students (70%) seem to agree on approving discussion in their classroom as 07 responses

were devoted to ‘average favourable’ and the largest number of ticks are distributed between

the options ‘desired’ and ‘most desired’, while small proportion 06 students (30%), divided

between 05 ticks in slightly favoured column and 01 in the least favourable column, seem not

interested in this activity.

Presentation of a given topic: less than the results of the pre-questionnaire, 14 informants

(70%) said they would like to present academic paper while more than the results obtained the

re-questionnaire,06 informants (30%) disapproved it.

184

11. How can you assess your ability to speak in English after having the simulation

activities?

Very good

Good

Average

Weak

Very weak

Options Very good Good Average Weak Very weak

Exp. G.1 01 11 07 01 0

Exp. G.2 02 12 06 0 0

Table 35: Students’ assessment of their speaking

As the majority of students believed that their speaking is improved due to simulations

as 11 informants (60% in Exp. G. 1) and 12 informants (70% in Exp. G. 2) see that their

ability to speak is good. Slighter proportion of ticks (01 in Exp. G.1 and 02 in Exp. G.2) are

found in the option very good. Noteworthy, 7 informants (35%) in experimental group 1

believed that their speaking is average and 1 (5%) said it is still weak, whereas 6 respondents

(30%) had average ability in speaking, in the counterpart group.

12. What are the speaking difficulties you think simulation activities helped you to

improve? (Classify them according to the scale (1 to 5) of improvement).

Speaking Aspect

Improvement

Not

improved

Slightly

improved

Averagely

improved

Improved Well

improved

a. Fluency

b. Pronunciation

c. Fear of making

mistakes

d. Inability to express

clear ideas

e. Grammar

185

Experimental Group 1 Results

Speaking Aspect

Improvement

Not

improved

Slightly

improved

Averagely

improved

Improved Well

improved

a 02 03 05 08 02

b 0 04 10 05 01

c 01 02 02 10 05

d 0 02 06 08 04

e 0 03 05 11 01

f 0 01 06 11 02

g 03 08 05 02 02

h 01 05 08 06 0

Table 36: Students’ opinion about the improvement of their speaking difficulties

(experimental group 1)

Fluency: 15 informants (75%),who claimed that fluency is difficult, seem to confess its

improvement as 05 respondents said it was averagely improved, 08 said it was improved

while 02 said it was well improved , while the remaining 15% saw it as slightly improved and

02 informants (10%) declared that fluency did not improve.

Pronunciation: over than the half of informants (16) believe that pronunciation has improved

(raging from average to well improve), while 04 respondents considered it slightly improved.

Fear of mistakes: informants are not any more afraid of their mistakes as 85% declared the

diminution of this fear as it was either averagely improved, improved, or well improved. It is

noticed that 02 informants (10%) said that this fear was slightly reduced and only 01 still have

this fear.

f. Lack of vocabulary

g. Class atmosphere

(group size and noise)

h. Time shortage

Any other aspect?

…………………………….

186

Inability to express clear ideas: the majority of the sample population 18 informants (80%)

reported that inability to express clear ideas has been improved, and 02 participants (10%)

said they are slightly satisfied with its improvement.

Grammar: over the half of the participants (85%) experienced enhancement in grammar

while 15% (frequency of 03) were not really convinced with its improvement as they all chose

the option slightly improved.

Lack of vocabulary: 19 respondents (95%) enriched their vocabulary while the remaining 01

informant reported the same lack of vocabulary.

Class atmosphere (group size and noise): unexpectedly, even though 65% of participants

said class atmosphere have non-threatening impact on their speaking, before they were

enrolled in the experiment, notwithstanding more than the half (11 participants) think that the

class atmosphere did not improve to a large extent, whereas 09 respondents (45%) feel secure

about the class atmosphere as 05 opted ‘averagely improved’ and 02 opted equally for

‘improved’ and ‘well improved’.

Time shortage: more than the half, 14 informants (70%) declared that time shortage has been

boosted as they had more chance to speak in the simulation activities. A slighter percentage

(30%) saw that time shortage did not really improve. noteworthy 01 informant still suffers

from time shortage in speaking.

No student has reported any improvement in any other aspects that are related to speaking.

Experimental Group 2 Results

Speaking Aspect

Improvement

Not

improved

Slightly

improved

Averagely

improved

Improved Well

improved

a 0 03 09 05 03

b 0 03 04 10 03

c 0 02 05 09 04

d 0 02 07 07 04

e 0 01 08 09 02

f 0 05 05 06 04

187

g 0 04 08 03 05

h 01 04 08 05 02

Table 37: Students’ opinion about the improvement of their speaking difficulties

(experimental group 2)

Fluency: almost the majority of the group, 17 participants (85%), confessed the improvement

of fluency, knowing that before the intervention 65% of informants considered fluency of

alternative difficulty. The remaining 03 students (15%) think that fluency did slightly

improved.

Pronunciation: a disproportionate percentage of informants (03) reported that pronunciation

has been slightly improved after having the simulation activities. It is also indicated that more

than the half (80%) think that pronunciation has been improved.

Fear of mistakes: basically, the majority of the participants (sum percentage of 90%)

experienced average and well improvement of fear reduction and only 10% (frequency of 02)

still suffer from the same problem.

Inability to express clear ideas: Similar to the results of Exp. G.1, 18 informants (90%)

reported that inability to express clear ideas has been improved while some respondents

(frequency of 02) considered it slightly improved.

Grammar: almost all the informants (95%) reported their enhancement in grammar as

indicated by 08 ‘averagely improved’, 09 ‘improved’ and 02 ‘well improved’, except for 1

(05%) who considered it slightly improved.

Lack of vocabulary: nearly the whole group (75%) felt satisfied with their vocabulary

growth as 05 (25%) opted for ‘averagely improved’, 06 (30%) chose ‘improved’ and 02

(10%) ticked ‘well improved’, when only 05 informants were slightly satisfied.

Class atmosphere (group size and noise): 16 participants (80%) (the sum of 08 ‘averagely

improved’, 03 ‘improved’ and 05 ‘well improved’) felt that noise and group size have been

188

improved, while only 20% see that noise and group size still disturb them as they have been

slightly improved.

Time shortage: three quarters of the group size (75%) believed that they had sufficient time

to speak better than before. A slighter percentage (20%) saw that time shortage was slightly

improved and (05%) that is to say 01 informant still has the same problem with the time

shortage.

No one has provided any enhancement in other aspect while speaking.

13. How can you assess your ability in listening to English after having the simulation

activities? (tick off the right answer)

Very good

Good

Average

Weak

Very weak

Options Very good Good Average Weak Very weak

Exp. G.1 01 11 07 01 0

Exp. G.2 03 11 05 01 0

Table 38: Students’ Assessment of their Listening

In Exp. G.1, There seems slight improvement in the students’ listening ability as 12

(60%) subjects declared their good or very good level. This improvement is noticeable,

especially in the light of the fact that only 07 students (35%) in the pre-questionnaire reported

that their listening is either good or very good. The rest 08 participants remained with average

and weak levels. The same findings are reported in Exp. G.2 as 08 informants (40%) said they

were either good or very good in listening before implementing simulations, but after the

intervention they became 14 informants (70%). The rest is still not satisfied with their level.

189

14. Did you like watching videos and listening to audio recordings (before the simulation)

in the classroom in the last semester?

Yes No

Options Yes No

N % N %

Exp. G.1 18 90 02 10

Exp. G.2 17 85 03 15

Table 39: Students’ desire about listening materials used in OE classroom

Almost all the groups (90% of the experimental group 1 and 85% of the experimental

group 2) responded positively to this question. This is probably due to the fact that students

used what they listened to or watched in the simulation later on. Noticeably, 2 students in

experimental group 1 and 3 students in its counterpart said they did not like these materials.

15. Were these/this material(s) helpful in making you perform better in the simulation?

Yes No

Options Yes No

N % N %

Exp. G.1 20 100 0 0

Exp. G.2 19 95 01 05

Table 40: The Impact of listening materials on students’ performance in the simulations

The whole experimental group1 and19 participants (95%) in experimental group 2

thought that these listening materials helped them to perform better in the simulations. This

result indicates the necessity of using listening materials which better depict the real-life input

which learners rely on in the simulations.

16. Did you like watching your performance in the simulation and be corrected by yourself

and your classmates besides your teacher?

Yes No

190

Options Yes No

N % N %

Exp. G.1 15 75 05 25

Exp. G.2 19 95 01 05

Table 41: Students’ opinion about watching and correcting their own performance in

the simulations

In both groups the largest proportion of answers, (15 ‘yes’ in Exp. G. 1 and 19 ‘yes’ in

Exp. G.2), was devoted to positive feedback. This implies that students are confident to accept

the peer and the teachers’ evaluation of their mistakes, besides this procedure works better

than the stereotyped way teachers follow when they give feedback (immediately or later on,

directly or indirectly).

17. Do you feel that simulation activities prepared you for real life communication? In

other words, do you feel that simulation activities adequately prepared you to solving

problems, making decisions, communicating, interacting and engaging in casual

spontaneous conversation and formal speech with native or non-native speakers in the

outside world?

Yes No

Options Yes No

N % N %

Exp. G.1 20 100 0 0

Exp. G.2 17 85 03 15

Table 42: Students’ satisfaction of simulation

The entire experimental group1 and over three quarters (85%) of the experimental group

2 felt satisfied with the impact of simulations on the improvement of their ability to be

engaged in social complex interactions. However, a slighter proportion of students (frequency

of 03), in experimental group 2, felt the opposite.

Why or Why not?

191

………………………………………………………………………………………………….

……………………………………………………………………………

Out of 20 students, who said that they liked simulations in experimental group 1,

provided the following reasons; simulations raised their self-confidence (said by 07

informants), allowed them to speak about different topics (01 students said that) which

developed his/her ‘social skills’ (another student put), improved fluency (pointed out by 03

students), helped them take real identities as they live the role of a native speaker( claimed by

01 respondent), reduced their mistakes (02 students put) and developed their listening ( said

by 01 student). Worth mentioning, 04 subjects remained silent and provided no justification

for why they approved simulations.

85% of informants in experimental group 2 shared some of the same reasons with their

counterparts in experimental group 1.

- 05 students said that simulations increased their self-confidence.

- 01 student put that: simulations “allow us to see how we would speak if we are in real

situation, speaking with native speaker.”

- 01 student pointed out that: “simulation activities improved fluency and make us

interested in different topics and fields for example politics.”

- 02 students agreed on the fact that simulations improved their listening skill and make

us to learn from our mistakes.

Noteworthy, 03 three students provided a rather different justification;

- 2 informants said that simulations give them freedom of the speech.

- 1 student contended that simulations “give them the chance to speak about real issues

that are happening right now.”

192

03 students, who expressed negative attitude towards simulations, said that simulation did not

improve our communication as we don’t have the knowledge to talk about certain topics like

economics and politics.

The remaining 5 students did not say why they were satisfied with simulation activities.

18. What would you change in the simulation activities to make them more effective for

learning to speak and listen?

……………………………………………………………………………………………….

………………………………………………………………………………………………..

The majority of the students (14 students), in experimental group 1, said that they would

change ‘nothing’ in the simulations they had before and 11 students in the experimental group

2 said the same. 02 students, in experimental group 1, and 01 student in experimental group 2,

wanted to change the sixth simulation which dealt with ‘the debate’. This is probably due to

what some informants in experimental groups two put: “we don’t have the knowledge to talk

about certain topics like economics and politics.” 01 informant in experimental group 1 and

03 in Exp. G.2 complained about the environment as they wanted to provide more materials to

make the environment look real. 01 student in each group desired to have funny topics. Only

one exceptional case (in Exp. G.2) wanted to lengthen the simulation time.

5.4 Interpretation of the Pre-questionnaire Results

This questionnaire has stemmed its existence from Jordan’s claim (1997) “needs

analysis should be the starting point for devising syllabuses, courses, materials and the kind of

teaching and learning that takes place” (p.22). Accordingly, needs analysis was employed for

devising simulation activities to second year students in this study. Before the intervention,

there were many factors (which were deduced from the pre-questionnaire results) shaped the

simulation design. Present situation analysis (PSA) basically revealed, surprisingly,

students’ satisfaction about their level in speaking (as reported by 95% of students in Exp. G.

193

1 and 90% of Exp. G.2) when they declared their deficiencies in fluency, pronunciation,

expressing ideas, grammar, vocabulary and fearing of mistakes (see question 16)

Besides, they were disappointed about their ability to listen as the materials (audio

recording and videos), used in the previous year, failed to improve their listening (said by

70% of exp. group1 and 75% of exp. group 2). This deduction was acceptable for Exp. G. 2 as

much as it was surprising for the Exp. G.1as listening was taught always in that group in the

previous year (put by 75% of informants). This finding may imply the fact that teaching

listening, which was based on testing students’ listening comprehension, did not satisfy their

needs. This implication is validated by the students’ responses to question 20 in which they

expressed their disapprobation of listening to audio or watching video in Oral Expression

class (16 informants (80%) ticked the option ‘no’).

In spite of the listening difficulty, students in both groups (80% of Exp. G. 1 and 85%

of Exp. G. 2) believed that their English was improved. Noteworthy, the majority of both

groups (90% of Exp. G.1 and the entire Exp. G. 2) sought for reinforcing their speaking as

they were aware of the importance and necessity of English (18 informants in Exp. G. 1 and

19 in Exp. G. 2). The last mentioned results have led to one main conclusion: students are

already motivated and strong-willed to enhance their ability to speak and listen.

Learners’ perceived wants cannot be neglected in order to maintain their motivation and

desire in learning; consequently, the students’ wants, which are known from the pre-

questionnaire, were considered before the implementation of simulations. The first account

was taken for is students’ favorite way of doing the speaking tasks. The results have rewarded

the cooperative learning, namely 70% of Exp. G. 1 and 75% of Exp. G. 2 supported small

group work. Consequently, simulations, employed in this study, were designed around small

group cooperation. Target situation analysis (TSA), on the other hand, shaped the design of

simulations used in this study. Both groups highlighted approximately the same target needs;

194

however, mainly the target need (getting a future job) which was pointed out by 65% of Exp.

G.1 and 80% of Exp. G.2, was taken into consideration while designing the simulation

activities. Accordingly, we attempted to approximate the first and fifth simulations’ content to

this particular need in addition to the second, third, fourth, and the sixth simulations’ themes

which were selected on the basis of academic purposes.

Speaking about the communicative abilities, most of the informants revealed high

command over them. From 60% to 95% in both Experimental groups agreed on the ability to

manipulate a wide range of language functions: making suggestions, agreeing/disagreeing,

complaining, greeting, asking for and giving directions and two listening strategies: solving

misunderstanding, namely asking for clarification, besides they approved their ability to be

interviewed and make decision. Making enquiries, presenting academic papers, expressing

opinion, engaging in authentic conversation and persuading others received from (50%) to

(70%) responses denoting disability. These findings have justified the implementation of

simulation activities as they engage learners in authentic situations and provide the context for

naturally occurring language functions.

Finally, the test of students’ acceptability to simulation activities (see questions 22 and

23), especially, to prepare them for interactional situations that require problem-solving or

decision making, came positive as both questions collected from 16 to 19 positive responses.

5.5 Interpretation of Post-questionnaire Results: A comparison of the Pre/Post Results

The post-questionnaire was designed to investigate any traceable change in students’

capacities and attitudes. As a result of strategy analysis, students’ lacks were spotted. After

the intervention students deficiencies have been noticeably improved. The change is shown in

the following table:

Before the intervention After the intervention

- 75% in exp.1 and 65% in exp. group

2 suffered from fluency.

- 75% in exp. group 1 and 85% in exp.

group 2 informed of fluency

195

- 65% in exp.1 and 20% had

difficulties with pronunciation.

- 70% in both groups were afraid of

their mistakes.

- 60% of exp. group 1 had serious

problem with expressing their ideas

to partner.

- 65% of exp. group 1 had difficulties

in grammar.

- 65% in exp.1 and 70% in exp. group

2 complained about vocabulary

shortage.

- 60% of exp. group 2 saw classroom

atmosphere as disturbing.

- 60% in exp.1 and 55% in exp. group

2 suffered from time shortage while

speaking.

improvement.

- 65% in exp.1 and 80% exp. group 2

reported improvement in

pronunciation.

- 85% in exp.1 and 80% exp. group 2

said they are no more afraid of their

mistakes.

- 90% of exp. group 1 have overcome

this problem.

- 85% think that grammar was

improved.

- 95% in exp. group 1 and 75% in exp.

group 2 remedied averagely this

difficulty.

- 80% of exp. group 2 said classroom

atmosphere was supportive.

- 70% in exp.1 and 75% in exp. group

2 learned how to deal with time

shortage.

Students’ communicative abilities have also witnessed a considerable reform. Students

remained struggling mostly with making enquiries and presenting academic paper (said by

60% of informants in Exp. G1 and 50% of informants in Exp. G.2 after the intervention). This

dissatisfaction is most probably due to that these two abilities were not stressed during the

simulations. Thus, with regard to the functional use of language, students seem to control

almost all the abilities mentioned in question 9 in the post questionnaire, such as expressing

opinion, persuading others, complaining, agreeing and disagreeing and the reception

strategies, for example, 60% of Exp. G. 1 and 80% of Exp. G. 2 said they are able to

understand whoever speaks as 50% of Exp. G. 1 and 70% of Exp. G. 2 said they can solve

misunderstanding problems. The improvement of students’ difficulties and their abilities was

also recognized by 60% of informants in Exp. G1 and 70% of subjects in Exp. G. 2 who said

that their speaking and listening were enhanced after the simulations. It is then deduced that

196

students developed their communication skills as some lacks in their speaking and listening

were improved.

Additionally, students’ lacks were covered and their attitudes towards the impact of

simulation on improving their communication were positive (as has been said by the entire

Exp. G. 1 and 85% of Exp. G. 2). Moreover, students became more confident, more free in

the speech, feel less embarrassed, nervous and hesitant, besides less afraid of making mistakes

(as pointed out by over 80% of the both groups). These learning achievements are obtained

owing to the technicalities of the simulations which encourage naturally-occurring

communication and the appreciation of failure as it is considered a starting point for the next

simulation. Simulations, then, could comfort students with shyness, lack of self-confidence,

unwillingness to begin which Jordan (1997) considers them among the biggest problems

students suffer from in a discussion.

The results revealed also that students were interested in simulation activities. This fact

is supported by the change in students’ perception of simulation activities as 09 informants

(45%) in Exp. G. 1 and half of the Exp. G. 2 ranked them least or slightly desired - before

the implementation of simulation activities - to become 13 informants (65%) in Exp. G.1 and

17 informants (85%) in Exp. G. 2 who desired or most desired these activities after the

intervention (see question 10), besides 12 informants in both groups enjoyed them as they

think they are useful or very useful activities (see questions 6 and 7). Additionally, the active

engagement of participants ((95%) of informants in both groups who participated often or

always) in simulations, expectedly, raised their interest as according to Jordan (1997) students

“want to function actively in the English language environment around them” (p. 26). The

positive change in students’ interest is approved with regard to the fact that students’

engagement exceeded their participation during the simulation, but it included their

involvement in the assessment process as they accepted and even liked (as shown in question

197

16 in the post questionnaire) watching the video recordings of their simulations to correct

them by themselves, their peers, or their teacher.

A special regard is also drawn towards students’ opinion about language learning and

teaching that took place during the simulations. The pre-questionnaire results revealed that

students believed that listening to audio recording and watching videos were not helpful,

however, this opinion was completely changed as the entire Exp. G. 1 and 95% Exp. G. 2

appreciated their use during the simulations. In essence, students liked these materials as

comprehension was no longer an end-product but a stimulus to language input which they

used in the simulations later on. Notwithstanding, students showed a weakness in assessing

the efficacy of the simulations when they were asked about whatever aspect they want to

change in the simulations (question 18 in the post-questionnaire). Although they admitted

their usefulness, 04 students in Exp. G. 1 and 06 in Exp. G. 2 provided some changes they

would like to import into the simulations. This shortcoming in the assessment of the

classroom materials is a result of teachers’ ignorance of their students’ opinion about the tasks

they do in the classroom and the students’ lack of analysis of what they did in the tasks in

relation to what they want, need and have to do.

Conclusion

Through the analysis of the EFL students’ questionnaire findings, we have concluded

that more than half of the students appreciated simulation activities as they had positive

opinion about their effectiveness. The usability and the effectiveness of the simulations were

approved through the noticeable improvements in students’ speaking and listening abilities.

Concerning the main gain of the simulations, the greatest part believed that they became able

to engage in authentic communication with high self-confidence. The results obtained,

therefore, validate the implementation of simulation activities in second year syllabus. We can

say that the second hypothesis is completely confirmed as most of the students are satisfied

198

with their achievements, due to simulation activities. In short, students have shown a clear

interest and thus form positive attitudes towards these activities.

CHAPTER SIX:

TEACHERS’ QUESTIONNAIRE ANALYSIS

Introduction 199

6.1 The Sample 199

6.2 Description of the Questionnaire 200

6.3 Analysis and Discussion of the Results 201

6.4 Interpretation of the Results 220

Conclusion 225

199

Chapter Six: Teachers’ Questionnaire Analysis

Introduction

The noticeable strong desire to have simulation techniques in second year classes,

revealed by the results of students’ pre/post questionnaires, has led to the design of the

teachers’ questionnaire. To complete the teacher/learner asymmetry, teachers at the

Department of Letters and English Language, University of Frères Mentouri Constantine 1

were assigned a questionnaire to know their opinions and views about the implementation of

simulations in second year syllabus. In a broader front, the aim of the questionnaire is whether

and to what extent the teachers of OE use the simulation activities in second year classes, their

opinion about their effectiveness to develop students speaking and listening skills, as well as

their views about incorporating these activities in the syllabus. In essence, the teachers’

questionnaire aims at answering two important questions of the present research:

• Do teachers at the department of Letters and English language use simulation

activities in their oral expression classes?

• What are the teachers’ views about implementing simulation activities in oral

expression syllabus?

6.1 The Sample

The total number of our sample is 20 teachers of OE at the Department of Letters and

English Language, University of Frères Mentouri, Constantine 1. The reason why the number

of teachers enrolled in this study is quite small is that the sample population is restricted only

to teachers who are teaching or taught Oral Expression module to second year students as the

aim of the present research is to prove the efficacy of simulation activities in second year OE

classes.

200

6.2 Description of the Questionnaire

The aim of the Teachers’ Questionnaire is clearly explained in the introduction of the

questionnaire (see Appendix: Teachers’ Questionnaire) with a particular emphasis on that this

questionnaire is designed to know the usability and the pedagogical effectiveness of

simulation activities in Oral Expression, particularly in second year classrooms. The

questionnaire consists of twenty questions presented in four sections. Section One, General

Information (Question 1 ─ 2), aims at obtaining general information about the teachers; their

degree (Question 1), and experience in teaching OE to second year students (Question 2). In

Section Two, Oral Expression Teaching (Question 3 ─ Question 5), the teachers are asked

about whether they had any teaching materials for the Oral Expression module, then they are

requested to explain the way they design their own materials if the answer is ‘No’ (Question

3), the time of instruction they devote to both oral/aural skills was also required to be

specified (Question 4) and their estimation about how often their students participated in Oral

Expression classes as well (Question 5). Section Three, Teacher Methodology (Question 6

─ Question 9), seeks to know the activities teachers use/used in the Oral Expression Module

(Question 6), whether they used video instruction ( Question 7) and teach listening

comprehension in laboratories or not(Question 8), afterwards this section inquires the way

teachers give feedback to their students (Question 9). Section Four: Students Problems in

Oral Expression (Question 10 ─ Question 13), provides a diagnosis of students challenges

in speaking and listening from teachers perspective, accordingly teachers are asked to

describe their students level in speaking (Question 10) and listening (Question 11), besides

they are required to select the difficulties -among many- students suffer from in speaking

(Question 12) and listening (Question 13). Section Five: Teachers Attitudes towards

Simulation Activities (Question 14 ─ Question 19), deals with whether they used simulation

activities in Oral Expression Classroom (Question 14), and if they would like to use

201

simulation, role play or both and they justify their choice (Question 15). Teachers also

estimate the effectiveness of simulation activities in developing the speaking skill (Question

16) and the listening skill (Question 17). Moreover, this section tries to investigate the

teachers’ opinions about the implementation of simulation activities in second year syllabus

(Question 18) and about the relation between the improvement of aspects like communication

effectiveness, attitudes, participation, problem solving ability, knowledge retention…etc. and

simulation activities (Question 19). Section Six: Further Suggestions, is a space provided

for the teachers to add any suggestions or comments (Question 20).

The teachers’ questionnaire is basically designed to include items of different types

which Dornyei (2007) mentions: dichotomous questions (yes/no), numerical rating scales

where participants have to tick a choice among a series of ordered categories, ‘Excellent’ to

‘Poor’ (Questions 10 and 11), semantic deferential scale where respondents have to mark with

a tick between two bipolar adjectives at the extremes, ‘Very effective’ to ‘Infective’

(Questions 16 and 17) and Likert scale in which respondents indicate the extent to which they

‘strongly agree’ to ‘strongly disagree’ (Questions 18 and 19).

6.3 Analysis and Discussion of the Results

Descriptive statistics is used mainly in the analysis of the questionnaires results.

Measures of frequency are applied, in most of the questions (from question 1 to question 17),

where how often particular answers occur. The frequency results are represented in tables or

bar graphs. However, for questions 18 and 19, since they were designed on a Likert Scale, a

different analysis approach is used. Firstly, each response option is assigned a number for

scoring purposes as follows:

5 4 3 2 1

Strongly agree Agree Neither agree

nor disagree

Disagree Strongly

disagree

202

Afterwards, central tendency, the median (“the score at the center of the distribution—that is,

the score that splits the group in half” according Mackey and Gass (2005, p. 254)) and

interquartile range (IQR) (“the difference of range between 3rd and 1st quartile” that is (Q3

– Q1), according to Singh (2006, p. 297) are measured. The quartile can be found when line

of scores given to one item is divided into four equal parts; the ‘cut-off’ points between the

four parts represent the quartiles. Interquartile range is meant to measure the degree of

variability or dispersion by the use of a single number, in other words, it shows whether the

responses are clustered together or scattered across the range of possible responses, Singh

(ibid) puts. The data is reported using the median and the IQR; when the IQR is small, there is

then an indication of consensus and the focus will be on the median which refers to the

general accepted opinion among the respondents. Whereas, if the IQR is large, there will be a

polarized opinion and a consideration of the dissonance of the opinions, that is how opinions

are divided between the two bipolar responses agreement and disagreement have to be taken

into account.

Section One: General information

1. What is the degree you hold?

a. Master

b. Magister

c. Ph. D.

Degree N %

Master 11 55%

Magister 03 15%

Ph. D. 06 30%

Total 20 100%

Table 43: Teachers’ degree

The results show that slightly over the half of the teachers (55%) have a ‘Master’

degree, while six teachers out of 20 have a ‘doctorate’ degree. However, very slight

203

proportion constitutes those who have ‘Magister’ degree. The conclusion which can be drawn

from these results is that all the teachers enrolled in this study are qualified to be OE teachers

and thus their answers are considered reliable and feasible to decide on approving or

disapproving the simulation activities in OE module.

2. For how many years have you been teaching Oral Expression to second year

students?

……………..years

Years N %

1 – 5 12 60%

6 – 10 05 25%

11 – 15 02 10%

16 – 20 0 00%

21 – 25 0 00%

26 – 30 0 00%

31 – 35 1 5%

Total 20 100%

Table 44: Teaching experience

Table 42 indicates that 60% of teachers have an OE teaching experience which ranges

between 01 and 05 years. Quarter proportion of teachers (25%) reveals to have an experience

which ranges between 06 and 10 years. The rest 2 teachers have spent from 11 to 15 years

teaching OE and only 1 teacher has from 31 to 35 years of teaching OE to second year

students. This entails that the teachers have enough experience to analyze and judge the

efficacy of whatever is adequate to be included in second year Oral Expression syllabus.

Consequently, this contribution to the study can be relied on.

Section Two: Oral Expression Teaching

3. Is/was there any provision of teaching materials for Oral Expression instruction?

a- Yes b- No

204

Options N %

Yes 08 40%

No 12 60%

Total 20 100%

Table 45: The provision of teaching materials

According to table 43, the majority of the teachers responded negatively to question 3,

that is, 12 teachers out of 20 have taught or presently teach OE without any syllabus provided,

while 08 teachers said that they had some teaching materials that they used in teaching OE.

This result entails the fact that most of the teachers design their own materials. Thus they are

qualified to assess the usability, relevance and efficacy of any new materials suggested, based

on their experience in choosing, adopting and designing OE teaching materials.

a- If yes, what were they?

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………

Out of 8 teachers who responded ‘yes’ to the previous question, 07 teachers have

provided the following materials; 5 teachers have been provided with tapes, audio lessons

and cassettes, noteworthy, 1 teachers among the former 5 teachers mentioned authentic

materials. The rest 2 respondents relied on textbooks and videos. Apparently, only 1 teacher

did not mention what materials s/he has been provided with.

b- If no, how do/did you design your Oral Expression lessons?

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………

The majority of teachers (60%), who relied on themselves to design, select or adopt

their own materials. Interestingly, 1 teachers among 12 teachers said that s/he interviews the

students to guess their needs and accordingly s/he develops the OE courses, while another one

tended to choose topics for the discussions from “books, magazines, and everyday life” and

the rest, who said that hey organise discussions, debates and presentations in the OE class, did

205

not mention how they choose the topics, except for one teacher who said that s/he asks her/his

students to choose the topic of their presentations and write their own role-plays. The same

teacher mentioned that s/he uses games, movies and songs. Additionally, another teacher

collected materials from internet or based on suggestions of colleagues. 3 teachers out 7 who

ticked the option ‘Yes’ in this question (section a), seemed not to be satisfied with the

materials they were provided with, thus they added their own; using activities mostly taken

from the internet, designing activities based on personal perspective, or using movies, radio

programs, and songs to provide input about oral skills, IPA pronunciation, and public

speaking.

4. In typical Oral Expression sessions per year, what percentage of your time in class

with students do/did you devote to the following skills?

Speaking …………..%

Listening …………..%

Figure 6: Speaking and listening teaching frequency

The speaking skill was the focal axis of the OE session as over the half of teachers (12

teachers spent approximately from (60%) to (80%) of their time focusing on the speaking

skill, and another 04 teachers taught only speaking for the majority or all their time.

Concerning the listening skill, it is quite the opposite. 09 teachers (45%) focus more on

speaking as they devote little time represented from (30%) to (40%) for teaching listening;

0 0

04

12

04

07

09

04

0 0 0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

0% - 20% 30% - 40% 50% 60% - 80% 90% - 100%

Speaking

Listening

206

however, only 04 teachers (20%) divide their teaching time equally (50%) between the

speaking and listening skills.

5. How often do/did your students participate in Oral Expression classes?

Always Often Sometimes Rarely

Figure 7: Participation rate

The results, showed in figure 8, reveal a consistent view about the students’

participation in OE classes as slightly over the half (60%) of teachers agreed on the fact that

their students often participated in the classroom. However, only 06 teachers ticked the

option always to describe students’ participation rate. Noteworthy, only 02 respondents saw

that their students sometimes participate, while no teacher opted for the adverb ‘rarely’.

Section Three: Teacher Methodology

6. What kind of language activities do/did you use to teach the oral/aural skills to second

year students?

1………………………………… 2……………………………………

3…………………………………… 4……………………………………

5……………………………………….

Language Activities N %

Listening to radio program, speeches, and lectures 1 05%

Discussion 8 40%

Debating over a topic 4 20%

Watching movies and discussing the theme 1 05%

Presentations 6 30%

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Always Often Sometimes Rarely

Part

icip

an

ts'

Nu

mb

er

207

Reading transcribed text and answering some questions about the IPA 1 05%

Contrasting materials 1 05%

Role-play 10 50%

Simulation 1 05%

Games 8 40%

Vocabulary-building activities 4 20%

Free talk 3 15%

Problem-solving task 2 10%

Audio/video listening and watching 1 05%

Storytelling 3 15%

Describing a scene 2 10%

Commenting a photo 1 05%

Read a text and discuss it 1 05%

Speeches 1 05%

Structured dialogues 2 10%

No answer 4 20%

Table 46: The language activities used in OE class

When teachers were asked about the language activities they use in OE classes, they

gave lists of varied activities which are gathered in the table above. As table 44 reveals, there

are common activities OE teachers tend to use in second year classes. For example, half of the

teachers (10 teachers) used role-play activities, approximate to the half (08 teachers) –

representing (40%) – use discussion and games. Presentation took place in only 06 teachers’

(30%) classes. Other activities were also employed in some OE classes, but had not much

popularity as the previous mentioned activities; vocabulary-building activities and debating

aver a topic were used only by 04 teachers (20%) each, while Free talk and storytelling took

place in 03 teachers’ OE classes respectively, and problem-solving tasks, describing a scene,

as well as structured dialogues were the least popular activities as only 02 teachers (10%), for

each, used them. Surprisingly, simulation activities could not rise to fame as only 01 teacher –

representing (05%) of the whole sample population – implemented them in OE classes. In the

same vein, listening to radio program, speeches, and lectures, watching movies and

208

discussing their theme, reading transcribed text and answering some questions about the IPA,

contrasting materials, audio/video listening and watching, commenting a photo, read a text

and discuss it, and speeches were used by only 01 teacher (05%). Notwithstanding, 04

teachers (20%) did not write any activity they used in their OE classes without mentioning

any justification.

7. When you have oral activities with the students, do/did you use video as a

supplementing tool for teaching?

a- Yes b- No

Options N %

Yes 09 45%

No 11 55%

Total 20 100%

Table 47: Video use in Oral Expression teaching

In table 45, the results are fairly close. Multimedia, namely video, seems to play a

disproportionate role in the OE classes as over the half of respondents (11 teachers) do/did not

use video to develop both oral/aural skills. The remaining proportion (09 teachers), which is

approximately the half (45%), said they used video in OE teaching. Nevertheless, the number

of teachers (09) who use/used video is not compatible with the number of teachers (01) who

said they use video or movie watching as oral activities (see question 06). This may well be

due to that teachers focus on tasks that come after the watching rather the watching per se, or

maybe the short time students spend in watching in relation to the time they spend in speaking

led teachers to not consider video watching as a complete aural activity.

8. Do/did you regularly teach listening comprehension in laboratories?

a- Yes b- No

If no, why?

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………

209

Options N %

Yes 08 40%

No 12 60%

Total 20 100%

Table 48: Teaching listening comprehension in laboratories

As figure 46 shows, slightly over the half (60%) of respondents replied positively to

question 08, whereas, the rest (40%) said they do/did not regularly teach listening

comprehension in laboratories. This implies that despite the fact that 12 teachers did not teach

listening comprehension in laboratories, only 11 teachers said that they did not use video to

teach listening comprehension (see question 07). Thus, only 01 teacher made extra effort and

tried to use video outside the laboratories, which means that this teacher might have used

his/her own computer or data show to use video in bare classroom.

The 12 teachers, who opted for the option ‘No’, were asked to justify their answer. 03

teachers (15% ) share the same argument ‘the number of students outweigh the laboratory

borders, to put it another way, the laboratories are small, as a result, students do not have

equal chance to listen or watch. Another 3 teachers complained about the lack of equipment,

while 05 teachers (25%) said that most of the time laboratories are not available because there

only few ones. Only 01 teacher (05%) reported that s/he needs laboratory if s/he wants ‘to

show students a video’.

9. When do/did you give feedback to students making oral mistakes in the classroom?

□ Directly, e.g. ‘feedback when the error is made, in front of the whole class’.

□ Indirectly, e.g. ‘feedback later on to that single student’.

□ Indirectly in a full class activity.

□ Not at all.

210

Figure 8: The teachers’ way of giving feedback

According to figure 9, a quite similar proportion of teachers, (10 teachers), is divided

between the two options Directly and Indirectly to Full Class, which basically means that half

of the teachers prefer immediate feedback, while the other half prefer not to break the

students’ participation in a task and delay the feedback until the end. They also prefer to give

feedback in full class, that is to say, they avoid embarrassing students. Apparently from figure

9, it seems that some teachers tend to use two or three different methods as it is declared by

05 teachers who said they give feedback after the task is finished but to single students who

did the mistake, while a very disproportionate number of teachers (02 teachers) do not give

any feedback claiming that it depends on time available, weight of the mistake and the

number of students.

Section Four: Students Problems in Oral Expression

10. According to your experience, how would you describe the actual level of your

students in speaking?

Excellent Good Average Poor

10

5

10

2

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Directly Indirectly to

Single Student

Indirectly to Full

Class

Not at all

Part

icip

an

ts'

Nu

mb

er

211

Figure 9: Students’ speaking Level

The results in figure 10 reveal a divergent and discrepant teachers’ estimation of

students level in speaking as more than the half (65%) of informants reported that their

students have average level in speaking. However, 06 teachers opted for the adjective Good to

describe their students speaking level, while no one has Excellent speaking level in their OE

classes and only one teacher, who represents (05%) of the sample population enrolled in this

study, said that his/her students have poor level in speaking.

11. According to your experience, how would you describe the actual level of your

students in listening?

Excellent Good Average Poor

Figure 10: Students’ listening level

Likewise, over the half of teachers (70%) agreed on the fact that their students have

average level in listening. Differently from the results shown in Figure 11, only 01 teacher

(05%) reported that his/her students have Good level in listening and 05 teachers (25%)

agreed on the adjective Poor which suits the evaluation of their students’ listening level,

0

6

13

1

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Excellent Good Average Poor

Part

icip

an

ts'

Nu

mb

er

0 1

14

5

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Excellent Good Average Poor

Part

icip

an

ts'

Nu

mb

er

212

Similarly, (0%) stands for the adjective Excellent, which implies the fact that all the teachers

had no excellent listener in English.

12. What are the main difficulties your students suffer from in speaking?

Accuracy Fluency Interacting with others

Solving communication breakdowns Self-confidence (shyness)

Lack of vocabulary

Others……………………………………………………………………………………….

Figure 11: Teachers’ views about their students’ speaking difficulties

The greatest part of teachers have opted for the same difficulties of speaking, thus

students most likely suffer from problems in fluency, and lack of vocabulary (as reported by

16 teachers (80%)), accuracy (as reported by 15 teachers (75%)) and lack of confidence (as

reported by 65% of teachers). Noticeably, students seem to moderately suffer while

interacting with others as only 08 teachers (40%) opted for this difficulty. Besides, students

said to be struggling while solving communication breakdowns as 05 teachers put.

Noteworthy, only 01 teacher (05%) provided another difficulty students suffer from in

speaking, which is the influence of the mother tongue.

13. What are the main difficulties your students suffer from in listening?

Accent Informal speech Long listening

Speed of the speech Authentic language

Others………………………………………………………………………………………

15 16

8

5

13

16

02468

1012141618

Part

icip

an

ts'

Nu

mb

er

213

Figure 12: Teachers’ views about their students’ listening difficulties

Out of 20 teachers who were asked to report the listening difficulties students mostly

suffer from, 16 teachers (80%) reported, on the one hand, that speed of the speech causes the

most problems to students; authentic language, accent, and informal speech, on the other

hand, seem to cause a considerable difficulty while listening as reported by 12 teachers

(60%), 11 teachers (55%), and 10 teachers (50%) respectively. However, long listening is

classified as the least difficulty students suffer from while listening, (opted for by 05 teachers

(25%)). Worth mentioning, only 01 teacher (05%) declared that lack of motivation might be

another difficulty, students encounter when listening.

Section Five: Teachers attitudes towards Simulation activities

14. Do you use or have you used simulation activities in Oral Expression classroom

before?

a- Yes b- No

Options N %

Yes 12 60%

No 08 40%

Total 20 100%

Table 49: The use of simulation activities in OE classroom

Very strikingly, 12 teachers (60%) out of 20 said they use or have used simulation

activities, that is to say over the half are acquainted with this technique. The 12 teachers

contradicted themselves because only 01 teacher wrote simulation activity when asked about

11 10

5

16

12

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

Accent Informal

Speech

Long

Listening

Speed of the

Speech

Authentic

Language

Part

icip

an

ts'

Nu

mb

er

214

the language activities s/he used in second year OE classes (see question 06). In contrast to

previous result – as table 47 shows – 08 teachers which represent (40%) of respondents are

not familiar with this technique as they have not used it in OE classroom. This might well

mean that a considerable average of second year students was not engaged in simulation

activities.

15. Would you like to use role-play or simulation activities in Oral Expression

classroom, or both?

Role-play Simulation activities Both

Specify why?

………………………………………………………………………………………….

……………………………………………………………………………….

Figure 13: Teachers preference for role-play or simulation activity

Figure 14, indicates that slightly over the half of teachers (55%) want to use both

activities – role-play and simulation – in their OE classes, whereas, 05 teachers (25%)

reported that they would like to use only role-play activity and the rest 03 teachers (15%)

opted for simulation activities as their favorite choice. In short, role-play seems slightly more

favorable than simulation as indicated by 11 teachers who chose both activities and 05 other

teachers who selected only role play. As the figure shows that 01 teachers’ response is

missing, this is due to the fact that this teacher reported that these two activities are NOT

useful.

16. How effective do you think simulation can help your students develop their

speaking skills?

Very effective Effective Slightly effective Ineffective

5

3

11

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Role-play Simulation activities Both (role-play and

simulation)

Part

icip

an

ts'

Nu

mb

er

215

Figure 14: The effectiveness of simulation activities in developing students’

speaking skill

Half of the teachers (50%) think that simulation activities are effective to develop

students’ speaking. Additionally, a considerable number of teachers (08) – fairly close to the

half – see simulation very effective in improving speaking. An equal small percentage of

teachers (05%) consider simulation either slightly effective or ineffective, represented by 01

teacher for each.

17. How effective do you think simulation can help your students develop their

listening skills?

Very effective Effective Slightly effective Ineffective

Figure 15: The effectiveness of simulation activities in developing students’ Listening

skill

Figure 16 indicates similar results as figure 15, with a slight difference. As has been

already mentioned, only 01 teacher thinks that simulation is slightly effective when developing

speaking; no teacher has opted for the same expression when developing listening. However,

by calculation, a teachers’ response is not included in this figure as this teacher has not

8

10

1 1

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Very effective Effective Slightly effective ineffective

Part

icip

an

ts'

Nu

mb

er

8

10

0 1

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Very effective Effective Slightly effective ineffective

216

selected any option. It is then deduced from these results that teachers agree on the fact that

simulations are useful and effective to be used to develop listening proficiency.

18. What is your opinion about the following statements?

A. Strongly B. Agree C. Neither agree D. disagree E. strongly

agree nor disagree disagree

Statements A B C D E

a. Second year students should be actively engaged in Oral

Expression class through the use of active learning

techniques.

b. Second year students should be provided with activities that

facilitate their development to be innovative and creative

thinkers.

c. Second year students should develop their interactive

learning style.

d. Second year students should know how to use language to

achieve functional meaning.

e. Second year students should be able to reflect their

comprehension of the theoretical concepts in

communication.

f. Simulation activities should be implemented in the second

year Oral Expression syllabus.

g. Simulation activities should be implemented to improve

EFL students speaking proficiency?

h. Simulation activities should be implemented to improve

EFL students listening proficiency?

Figure 16: Teachers’ opinion about the implementation of simulation activities in second

year Oral Expression syllabus

16 14 13 12 7 8 8 7

3 6 4 5

7 5 6 6

1 3 3 6 6 5 5

1 1 2

0

5

10

15

20

25

Part

icip

an

ts'

Nu

mb

er

Strongly Agree Agree Partially agree Disagree Strongly Disagree

217

The provided statements in question 18, are represented by small letters of the alphabet, thus

they are coded (18.a), (18.b), and (18.c)…etc. in the order presented in the questionnaire.

Most of respondents indicated strong agreement with statement (18.a) which supports

the use of active learning techniques (Mdn=5, IQR=0). There seems also a consensus

concerning statements (18.b), (18.c), and (18.d) with a strong agreement, in other words the

majority of respondents strongly agree with the idea that second year students should be

provided with activities that facilitate their development to be innovative and creative

thinkers, develop their interactive learning style and help them know how to use language to

achieve functional meaning (Mdn=5, IQR=1). Another consensus appears in statements

(18.e), (18.f), (18.g), and (18.h). Most of the teachers agreed with the ideas: second year

students should be able to reflect their comprehension of the theoretical concepts in

communication, and simulation activities should be implemented in the second year Oral

Expression syllabus to improve EFL students’ speaking and listening skills (Mdn=4, IQR=2).

19. Again, what is your opinion about the following statements?

A. Strongly B. Agree C. Neither agree D. disagree E. strongly

agree nor disagree disagree

Statements A B C D E

a. Students’ oral skills are improved when they are engaged in

enjoyable and exciting experience in the classroom.

b. Students’ communication skills would be improved when they

feel responsible for solving problems and making decisions

during the communication.

c. Students can better develop their speaking and listening skills

through cooperative work in the classroom.

d. Students listening skills are better developed through interactive

activities.

e. Functional language like agreeing, clarifying, expressing

misunderstanding, requesting, etc. is better taught when students

are engaged in complex social processes.

f. Students speaking skills are best developed through immersing

students in reasonable representation of a real environment.

g. Students’ listening skills will improve when students are able to

solve understanding problems in communicative realistic

environment.

h. The true assessment of students speaking proficiency should

218

focus on their ability to convey authentic purposes in real-life

interactive situations.

i. Simulations foster an increase in the levels of student

preparation and participation.

j. Simulations help develop students’ knowledge retention.

k. Simulations allow good deal of listening and understanding of

how the other people are feeling and a good knowledge of how

linguistically to take turns or allow others to do so.

l. Simulations enhance the use of a number of common lexis,

especially to perform language functions such agreeing,

disagreeing, clarifying, expressing misunderstanding, etc.

m. Simulations allow students to use different communication skills

like journalism, making speech, analysis, oratory, etc.

n. Students’ communication would be improved when their failure

is as desirable as success.

o. Students’ fear of mistakes will be reduced due to simulation

activities.

p. Simulation activities allow self-assessment and peer feedback.

q. Simulations raise students’ self-confidence and motivation.

r. Simulations provide invisibility to the teacher to monitor the

progress of the students.

Figure 17: Teachers’ opinion about the usefulness of the simulation activities in OE classes

The same coded scheme, used in question 18, is applied in question 19, that is, small

alphabet letters are used to represent the 18 statements (e.g., (19.a), (19.b)) in the same order

they are mentioned in the table.

16

10 10 7 8 8

10

6 5 6 8 7

9

2 5 6

9 7

3

7 6 9

5

10 8

11 12 12

11 10

8

10

10 10

9

9

1 3 4

1 6

1 2 2 1 2 1

6 3

3 1

2 3

1 1 2 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Strongly agree Agree Partially agree Disagree Strongly Disagree

219

The interquartile range (IQR) for all the statements is relatively small (0, 1 or 2);

consequently, no polarization of views among the sample of teachers appears. The opinions’

dispersion was oriented to only one polar rather than the other. To report the data, the median

is emphasized. Most teachers reveal strong agreement on statements (19.a) which supports

the idea of enjoyable and exciting learning experience (Mdn=5, IQR=0), (19.b) which

advocates the concept of responsible learning through solving problems and making

decisions, (19.c) that endorses the role of cooperative work in the classroom, and (19.g) which

holds the idea that communicative realistic environment will lead to listening improvement

(Mdn=4.5, IQR=1). Almost all the respondents indicated agreement with the rest of the

statements; (19.d) which highlights the importance of interactive activities to develop the

listening skill, (19.f) that supports the role of immersing students in reasonable representation

of a real environment to develop speaking, (19.h) which conveys the idea of assessing

speaking proficiency in real-life interactive situations, (19.j) which espouses the importance

of simulation in knowledge retention, (19.k) that endorses the concept of teaching listening in

interaction through simulations, (19.l) which stresses that simulations help develop language

functions, (19.m) which approves the idea of developing communication skills through

simulations, (19.n) which deals with the idea of treating failures and success equally, (19.o)

which favours the idea that simulations reduce anxiety, (19.p) which holds the idea that

simulation activities allow self-assessment and peer feedback, (19.q) which argues over the

role of simulations in boosting self-confidence and motivation, (19.r) which speaks about the

influence of simulations on the role of the teacher (Mdn=4, IQR=1), (19.e) which underpins

teaching functional language when engaged in complex social processes (Mdn=4, IQR=2),

and (19.i) which advocates the opinion that simulations foster student’s preparation and

participation’ (Mdn= 4, IQR=0).

220

Section Six: Further Suggestions

20. Please, add any further suggestions or comments.

Only 03 teachers added their own suggestions or comments. 02 teachers have accentuated the

role of the classroom in deciding what best fits learning and teaching:

One teacher considered the reasonability of the group size to decide on the effectiveness of

simulations.

Another teacher suggested focusing on two important points in the language classroom to

decide on the effectiveness of any activity; firstly any language activity should take into

consideration students’ oral/aural ability, motivation and interest. Secondly, the experience of

the teaching and learning that happens in the classroom should be the basis for the selection,

adaptation, or the design of the activities, the teacher said: “Not to delve into much detail,

there is no guarantee for effectiveness in learning and teaching a foreign language. The

teacher must reflect on whatever her or his students do in the classroom to develop and be

more creative and add his personal teaching/learning tasks tailored to his students.”

The third teacher has criticized the communicative approach saying that it was originally

created to suit the European people communicative needs. S/he said: “When using it in

academic settings, it ended up teaching learners a hybrid version of English which is neither

the spoken variety nor the academic one producing in most cases very poor learners of

Academic English.” Moreover the same teacher suggested focusing on how learners

perceive learning as s/he puts: “as long as the learner believes that learning happens only

inside the walls of a classroom, laboratory or amphitheater, they will never learn more than

25% of what they are expected to, in the best of cases.”

6.4 Interpretation of the Results

The analysis of the findings revealed that, expectedly, the majority of teachers’

experience can be adequately relied on to decide whether to implement simulation activities

or not in the second year syllabus. This conclusion is drawn because of the fact that 60% of

teachers are responsible for the design of OE materials; in addition the remaining 40%

221

adopted the existing materials and brought their own modifications. The teachers’ experience

of selecting, creating and designing the appropriate materials that satisfy second year

students’ needs, interests, and abilities has given an extra impulse to the credibility of the

attitudes and opinions expressed by the teachers.

Although, the majority of teachers – more than (60%) – are responsible for the selection

of the OE activities, surprisingly, simulation activity is not one of their favourite choices as

the findings reveal that it was implemented by (05%) of the teachers, whereas, strikingly, 50%

of teachers reported that they use simulation-like activity which is role-play. This tendency

towards role play might be due to that teachers perceive simulation and role play as one

activity, especially because of the close nature they both have, thus the implementation of one

according to them is sufficient. Another striking result is when 60% of teachers said that

simulations are frequent in their OE classes (question 14). This contradiction may well be due

to the aforementioned interpretation which credits the over-dependability of teachers on role

play. To reinforce this interpretation, 25% wanted to have role-play activities and 55%

preferred to use simulations and role play, but only 15% of the whole sample population

wanted to use simulation.

In addition to role play, teachers provided a diversity of activities which hinge upon

interaction-based activities like discussions, debates, free talk, problem-solving tasks, and

structured dialogues which seem efficient as they focus on communication; however, they

lack the authentic context which gives credibility to the language use. Drills and

presentations, with their transactional nature, are also employed by many teachers in spite of

their deficiency to prepare students for real-life communication.

In spite of the clear preference for role play activities, the majority of OE teachers 80%

said that simulations are either effective or very effective in speaking and listening

222

development, especially, knowing that second year students have average level in speaking

and listening as reported by 65% and 70% of teachers respectively. As one of the teachers

stressed the need to consider students abilities when choosing the activities (see question 20);

this implies that simulations are most probably the recommended activities to improve

students’ speaking and listening level. This insufficiency in speaking and listening level may

well be due to the discrepant focus, teachers gave to the development of both skills which

announces clearly the underestimation of listening in second year OE classes because teachers

devote from (60%) to (80%) of the session’s time constraint to teaching speaking, while from

30% to 40% of that time is devoted to teaching listening. only a disproportionate percentage

of time (20%) is devoted to teaching both speaking and listening equally. This finding reports

two important interpretations; it confirmed what has been already stated in the statement of

the problem of the present study which alerts to the negligence of teaching listening in OE

classes, and highlights the fact that teachers may consider their students’ needs but fail to

recognise and satisfy their lacks as almost all second year students (95%), in both

experimental groups, expressed their need to reinforce their speaking (see Chapter Five:

Students’ Questionnaire Analysis, sub-subsection: Analysis and discussion of the Pre-

questionnaire Results, question 17), particularly, fluency, lack of vocabulary which 80% of

teachers and beyond the half of students (from (65%) to (75%)) in both experimental groups

agreed on. Additionally, 45% of students in exp. G. 1 and 55% in exp. G.2 expressed

weakness in listening as they said that they are moderately suffering while listening (see

Chapter Five: Students’ Questionnaire Analysis, subsection: Analysis and discussion of the

Pre-questionnaire Results, question19).

Furthermore, the negligence of listening is clearly demonstrated in the activities used by

teachers in the OE classes as small percentage (10%) appears to represent the activities with

the nature of listening (e.g. audio/video watching and listening to radio program). Video, as a

223

result, it is not popular in OE classes, as declared by 55% of teachers. This is due to the few

sessions which take place in laboratories, therefore over the half of teachers (60%) found

difficulties to teach listening in the right atmosphere. Nevertheless, it is undeniable that it is

beneficial for learners to listen to or watch native speakers using English in authentic way, as

a result, they can easily replicate the genuine use of English in the real situation presented in

simulations.

Feedback provision is also investigated, thorough question 9, as it has direct relation

with the students achievements. Students suffer from the lack of self-confidence, according to

65% of teachers, and face extreme fear of mistakes when speaking as reported by 70% of

students in both experimental groups (see Chapter Five: Students’ Questionnaire Analysis,

subsection: Analysis and discussion of the Pre-questionnaire Results, question 5). This

implies that the teachers’ method of giving feedback did not encourage learners to take risks

in speaking; however, it inhibited them from challenging their fears. Thus, when teachers

correct their students’ mistakes in front of the whole class whether directly (immediately

when the error occurs) or indirectly (after students finish the task), this may lead to students’

fear of embarrassment or over thinking about the mistake and thus lose focus on the goal of

the task.

The participation rate is obviously one of the crucial criteria teachers rely on when

choosing the aural/oral activities. In second year population, the participation rate is

acceptable as students participate often as reported by 60% of teachers and confirmed by 50%

of students in Exp. G.1 and 45% in Exp.G.2 (see Chapter Five: Students’ Questionnaire

Analysis, subsection: Analysis and discussion of the Pre-questionnaire Results, question 16).

This implies that simulations, which require high engagement of students, work better in

second year classes as students are acquainted with the participation in the different

communicative events in the classroom.

224

With regard to teachers’ positive opinion about the effectiveness of simulation activities

(question 18), its implementation became highly recommended as most of the teachers

approved implicitly the most effective practices and benefits which simulation may bring to

the language classroom; active engagement of learners, innovative thinking, ability to adhere

to the functional meaning of the language, and the reflection of the theoretical knowledge,

with absolute median of teachers’ responses (05) and Interquartile range (IQR) (0). In

addition to that, the majority of teachers agreed explicitly on the recommendation of using

simulations in second year syllabus to develop both the speaking and listening skills, with

median of responses (04) and a small (IQR) (2).

Additionally, an appeal was made to teachers through question 19 to find out the

influence of simulations on the language teaching and learning. A general consensus about the

positive impact of simulation in the language classroom has been reached by most of the

teachers as in most cases the median was (04), (4.5), and (05) while the IQR was small (0, 1,

and 2). In short, most of the teachers either strongly agree or agree on the fact that

simulations create responsible learning by putting learners in real-life situations which

resemble the real language duties learners have to do (e.g. solving real problems and making

decisions). Besides, its long-term effect helps learners to keep possessing the theoretical

knowledge they acquired, as said by the majority of teachers. As far as the learner

achievements are concerned, learners’ speaking and listening skills are improved because of

the real conditions of language use simulations provide, which give students the chance to

listen and respond and adhere to turn-taking, the cooperative and interactive nature, and the

opportunity simulations grant to use the functional and lexical knowledge. Learners’ anxiety

and fear of mistakes are automatically reduced due to the exciting experience of simulation

which is pressure-free as failure is no more than another step learner should consider in the

next simulation and the teachers’ assessment no longer dominates as self-assessment and

225

peer-feedback take place. Moreover, self-confidence and motivation are boosted owing to

simulation, according to teachers as well as students who mentioned self-confidence as one

of the benefits they gained after they had the simulations (see Chapter Five: Students’

Questionnaire Analysis, subsection: Analysis and discussion of the Post-questionnaire

Results, question 17).

Conclusion

The interpretation of the Teachers’ Questionnaire findings has revealed a highly

appreciated teachers’ creed and attitudes towards the simulation activities. This conclusion

has given more credibility to the aim of the thesis as most of teachers supported clearly the

implementation of simulation activities in the second year syllabus. This assumption has been

drawn from the belief of the majority of the teachers who approved the effectiveness of

simulation activities in developing both speaking and listening proficiency and agreed on the

multiplicity of the positive habits simulations bring to the language classroom. The experience

of second year teachers in materials design made their responses highly reliable, consequently

their views and attitudes, which encouraged the use of these activities in second year Oral

Expression classes, have been taken into consideration. In short, the questions stated in the

introduction have been answered through the analysis of the questionnaires’ results.

CHAPTER SEVEN:

INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS AND RESEARCH FINDINGS

Introduction 226

7.1 Brief Explanation of the Experiment 226

7.2 Validity, Reliability, and Generalizability in the Present Study 227

7.2.1 Validity of the Present Study 227

7.2.2 Reliability 228

7.3 Description of the Test 229

7.4 Procedure 230

7.4.1 Spoken Assessment Procedure: Marking System 231

7.4.2 Listening Assessment Procedure 234

7.5 Analysis and Interpretation of the Results 236

7.5.1 Listening Pre-test Results 236

7.5.1.1 Comparison of the Results Obtained by the Experimental Group 01and the

Experimental Group 02 in the Listening Pre-test 238

7.5.2 Listening Post-test Results 240

7.5.2.1 Comparison of the Results Obtained by the Experimental Group 01 and the

Experimental Group 02 in the Listening Pre/Post-test 242

7.5.3 Listening Delayed Post-test Results 243

7.5.3.1 Comparison of the Results Obtained by the Experimental Group 01 and the

Experimental Group 02 in the Listening Delayed Post-test 245

7.5.4 Speaking Pre-test Results 246

7.5.5 Speaking Post-test Results 247

7.5.5.1 Comparison of the Results Obtained by the Experimental Group 01 and the

Experimental Group 02 in the Speaking Pre/Post-test 247

7.5.6 Speaking Delayed Post-test 248

7.5.6.1 Comparison of the Results Obtained by the Experimental Group 01 and the

Experimental Group 02 in the Speaking Post-test and Delayed Post-test 249

7.6 Discussion of the Results 250

7.6.1 Listening Proficiency Results 250

7.6.2 Speaking Proficiency Results: A qualitative Analysis 253

7.7 Pedagogical Implications 258

7.7.1 The Advantage and the Effectiveness of Simulation Activities 258

7.7.2 The Pedagogical Principles of Teaching Speaking and Listening through

Simulation Activities 260

7.8 Pedagogical Recommendations 263

7.9 Limitations of the Study 266

Conclusion 267

226

Chapter Seven: Interpretation of Results and Research Findings

Introduction

This chapter is devoted to cover the experiment of this study. Particularly, the rational

and purpose behind this chapter is to foreground the use and the effectiveness of simulation

techniques to improve second year students’ speaking and listening proficiency. To pave the

way for foregrounding the simulation effectiveness, two experimental groups were taught by

using integrated simulation activities in their Oral Expression class and the pre-intervention

and post-intervention scores have been, then, analysed to report the changing aspects in

students’ speaking and listening skills and thus in their oral communication. Hence, the aim

of this part of the study is to test two hypotheses: when teachers apply simulation techniques

in EFL classrooms, this would develop students’ listening and speaking proficiency and if

teachers focus on developing the listening and speaking skills in EFL courses, students’

communicative language proficiency would improve.

7.1 Brief Explanation of the Experiment

As has been mentioned in chapter four, the experimental design for the present study is

of quasi nature. More specifically, related-sample tests are the kind of test used. This

orientation to this particular type of tests is due to the fact that this research’s aim is to prove

that the possible difference between the pre and post-tests is owing to the independent

variable. However, knowing that subjects vary on some variables, which lead to unequal

subjects and which may impact the results obtained, related-sample tests are then used to lay

out the equilibrium between subjects of the experimental groups enrolled in the experiment.

The results, then, are certainly derived from the independent variable as any possible

difference between subjects is diminished and hence subjects became related by the matching

procedure, which is explained thoroughly in Chapter Four, Sub-section 4.2.3 Sampling p.

121).

227

7.2 Validity, Reliability, and Generalizability in the Present Study

As validity is “the touchstone of all types of educational research” (Cohen et al., 2000,

p. 106), the present research places validity and reliability among the necessities to give

credence to the experiment. Among the types of validity, internal and external validity caught

the most attention of this research.

7.2.1 Validity of the Present Study

Validity is the extent to which a measurement instrument measures what it is intended

to measure, and measures it accurately (Mackey and Gass, 2005). There are many types of

validity, including content, face, construct, criterion-related, and predictive validity, according

to Mackey and Gass (ibid). We deal with internal and external validity, which are the most

common areas of concern in quasi-experimental designs.

This study was conducted using internal validity as quasi-experimental design faces

criticism about its internal validity. It refers to what extent are the differences that have been

found for the dependent variable directly related to the independent variable. The researcher

should eliminate threaten of factors such as participant characteristics, participant mortality

(dropout rate), inattention and attitude, maturation, data collection (location and collector),

instrumentation and test effects, Mackey and Gass (2005) note. In this study, both

experimental groups were homogenous in terms of exposure to the English language as the

analysis of the students’ questionnaire revealed. To determine the shorter- and longer-term

effects of a treatment and increase the internal validity, delayed post-test was carried out, as

proposed by Mackey and Gass (ibid, p. 149) and two groups pre/post-test design was

implemented instead of one group pre/post-test design.

External validity which also known as generalizability is concerned with “the extent to

which the findings of the study are relevant not only to the research population, but also to the

228

wider population of language learners”, Mackey and Gass (ibid, p. 119) put. As the internal

validity has increased in this study, besides the sample chosen for this study was selected

randomly as both experimental groups were given to the researcher randomly by the

department of Letters and English Language, each participant in both groups has the same

chance of being selected as does any other individual. Furthermore, the size of the sample was

representative; thus, generalization is more appropriate in this study and the results obtained

could be applied to the target population: EFL second year students.

7.2.2 Reliability

In order to verify the reliability of the research instrument, we have used multiple traits

to define the research reliability. We ensured first the reliability of the experiment

manipulation (the six simulations used in the experiment) by conducting the pilot study which

gave a deep insight about the most efficient practices and the required refrains for the main

experiment. Besides, all the simulations were given to another teacher for scrutiny and

approval purposes before use then they were revised and finalised after the pilot study.

Concerning the test reliability, Brown (2001) distinguishes between the reliability of the test

itself and the scorer reliability. Test-retest reliability, which Mackey and Gass (2005)

recommend to prove the intrarater reliability, is a procedure used in this study to determine

the consistency of the results to ensure the test reliability. We have administered equivalent

test forms multiple times by asking the same matched subjects to do the same thing and

following the same research procedures. Consequently three tests (pre, post and delayed tests)

were employed in this study purporting the same results. Noteworthy the delayed post-test

was conducted one month later following the first post-test.

The scorer reliability has been achieved through specifications employed in the scoring

of the test as Brown (ibid) requests. Brown adds that an analytic scoring system is required for

229

the increase of scorer reliability. For more elicitation of the scoring specifications see the

following subsection.

7.3 Description of the Test

The basic consideration in the design of the test is its ability to provide inferences about

students’ ability as “the primary concern in designing a test task is to elicit enough speech to

allow a rating to take place” (Fulcher, 2003, p. 50). This test in the present study aims at

assessing both speaking and listening proficiency. The format of this proficiency test does not

involve one-on-one tester/test-taker relationship, but involves interaction-based task and it is

linked to the tenets of communicative language teaching as it encourages cooperative learning

in the classroom. This inspiration brought the test format into line with the paired interactive

exchange that resembled real-life ones. Based on the recommendation made by Vandergrift

(1997, p. 503), for testing interactive listening: “participants should share equal role

relationships (e.g., student and student)”, paired test seems then the appropriate test format to

assess listening. The students’ paired test came to replace the oral proficiency interview

because the latter has been criticised for the inequality of two participants (usually the teacher

is the test taker) (Fulcher, ibid, p. 186) and for its limited scope of language testing as Fulcher

assumes that there is a doubt about whether this test format can really test other competencies

rather than merely language competence. Hence, paired test was applied as oral/aural test

format. Consequently, discussion about a given topic is done in pairs. Although this format is

non asymmetrical as it gives the same chances to equal students to speak in a discussion and

elicit natural discourse, it received criticism as to “how a score can be given to an individual

when the interaction is co-constructed” (Fulcher, ibid, p. 86). However, knowing students will

be language users in the real world where they have to manage discourse, maintain its

coherence, accuracy and appropriateness, and negotiate meaning in a homogenous or

heterogeneous turn taking, it gives more credence to the discussion test which stimulates

230

students’ ability to handle real-life speaking and listening as interaction may not resemble

‘test-like’ discourse (Underhill, 1987). Furthermore, as the treatment used in this research is

simulations, it is logically accepted that the discussion format is most suitable especially,

considering that simulations “involve a substantial amount of interaction between the

participants” (Jones, 1982, p.7).The framework for the speaking test format is described

according to Fulcher’s (2003) framework (p. 85):

Task Orientation: Guided. The students are asked to discuss a given topic. The discussion is

driven by the topic itself. While turn-taking is open. The treatment and outcome of the

discussion is guided (giving and evaluating opinion).

Interactional Relationship: Two-way, between two test takers.

Goal Orientation: convergent or divergent as the students may have similar or different

opinions.

Interlocutor Status and Familiarity: same status, variable familiarity.

Topic: topic chosen according to its familiarity and authenticity. The students discuss an up-

to-date topic.

Situations: conversation

The same format has been used in the pre/post tests and the delayed post-test (see appendixes

VI, VII, and VIII).

7.4 Procedure

Second year students were given a set of instructions which include random pairing of

students prior to the actual performance of the task. Time needed for the task has not been

limited. Ellis (2003) claims: this option “can influence the nature of the language students

produce” (p. 249). This choice, then, was deliberately elected to free learners from time

pressure and to release their concentration solely on their performance as Yuan and Ellis

(2003) found that students who were asked to perform the task in unlimited time produced

231

more complex and accurate language in comparison to the group who performed the same

task under the pressure of limited time (as cited in Ellis, ibid, p. 149). During the test, students

were told that the test’s mark will not be counted. By doing this, we wanted to deviate the

students’ attention from proving their proficiency and rather to engage spontaneously in the

conversation without paying attention to the consequences.

Weir (2005, p.192) claimed that “the assessment of spoken language is potentially more

problematic than the rating of written scripts.” As a result, video recordings of students’ test’

were collected (see appendix XII), and then converted into written scripts. Afterwards, the

transcripts (see appendix XIV, XV, XVI) were encoded into ordinal scores.

7.4.1 Spoken Assessment Procedure: Marking System

Learners’ video recordings are assessed according to the tape marking as the first

scoring procedure (Underhill, 1987, p. 93). Some oral tests tend to assess the overall

proficiency through impression marking. This procedure is known as the holistic approach to

language testing. According to Underhill (ibid), “impression marking is used for the kind of

categories that are very hard to define but everybody agrees are important: fluency, ability to

communicate, style, naturalness of speech, and so on” (p.101). But the problem raised with

this analysis method is that judging oral effectiveness on the basis of impression may doubt

objectivity and produce different measuring scales for one aspect. Moreover, as pointed out

by Underhill (ibid), “making accurate impression-based assessments requires a lot of

experience … Even experienced assessors find it difficult to make consistent impression-

based judgments” (p. 101).

An analytic or the atomistic judgment is required then for speaking assessment. The

atomistic approach to language testing provide a detailed marking scheme, in other words, the

overall proficiency is divided into specific aspects of the learner’s performance and then

evaluated separately. The separate marks are combined to produce the overall score. This

232

method of language testing is claimed to be more objective than the holistic approach. The

atomistic test techniques are used as a strategy to elicit the information in this paper in favor

of the holistic approach for two reasons; the marker is not well experienced in grading system

or impression-based assessment, besides evaluating separate units of oral performance gives

more detailed diagnosis of the learner’s problems and achievements.

Speaking proficiency comprise different speaking sub skills or language components.

Thus, in order to evaluate the speaking proficiency, language components or categories

should be defined. Consequently, the assessor or marker marks each category alone. Underhill

(1987) says that “The use of mark categories makes the marking of oral tests easier and more

consistent” (p. 97). This test has put together the traditional model of language components

(focus on the accurate use of a language) and the recent model of performance criteria (focus

on assessing learners’ communication) (Underhill, ibid, p.96) to generate a clear defined

speaking proficiency. “Since it is also important that the analytic criteria are conceptually

independent, at least to some extent, five to six criteria may be close to the maximum” (

Luoma, 2004, p.80). Starting from this assertion, an analytic rubric was applied in this

research, particularly, we have adapted it from Weir (1993) (as cited in Weir, 2005, pp.195-

196). In Weir’s (ibid) rubric, there are five criteria: fluency, pronunciation, vocabulary,

grammatical accuracy, and interactional strategies. A detailed construct definition of these

criteria, considered in this study, is as follows:

- Fluency depends in this study, on the speed of students’ speech (how long does the

participant speak), hesitation (how much does the speaker hesitate before and while speaking)

which is measured according to the unfilled pauses. Repetition of syllabus or words, changing

words or structures and cohesion (Fulcher, 2003) are also covered in the assessment process.

- Pronunciation includes single word pronunciation which is according to Fulcher (ibid) of

disproportionate concern as testing pronunciation depends on general intelligibility; however,

233

we have included word pronunciation in the testing as second year students are taught the

distinction between sounds in English. Stress and intonation are also included in the

assessment as they have great impact on the understanding of meaning at the level of the

utterance.

- Vocabulary centrally focuses on vocabulary production and comprehension. Thus, it is

assessed according to different dimensions; decide whether students can use a word properly

in context and register, they are able to supply derived forms of base words, infer the meaning

of unknown words; use collocations correctly, use vocabulary with full flexibility and

precision and use idiomatic expression naturally.

- Grammatical accuracy in which Fulcher (2003) distinguished between high and low

gravity errors. As far as this study is concerned, the assessment focused mostly on high

gravity errors as the low gravity errors do not hinder communication as long as they are

“unlikely to cause misunderstanding” (p.27). The errors being focused on in the assessment

are: word order, omission, pronouns, the construction of relative clauses, and tense. Despite

the fact that tense is of a low gravity, it is unavoidable in the assessment as it is mainly

emphasized in the second year grammar syllabus.

- Interactional strategies deal with production strategies rather than reception ones.

Particularly, in this criterion, the term ‘interactional strategies’ means using strategies such as

initiating the discussion, expanding the topic, turn taking and concluding the discussion as

announced by Weir (1993) (as cited in Weir, 2005, p.196). Besides, a special attention is

drawn towards students’ ability to express a range of functions to achieve social needs, such

as agreeing/disagreeing, expressing opinion, explaining, raising objection…etc. Furthermore,

The marking scale is explained in the following table as follows:

234

Criteria Marks

Fluency 4 out of 20

Pronunciation 4 out of 20

Vocabulary 4 out of 20

Grammatical accuracy 4 out of 20

Interactional strategies 4 out of 20

Total score 20 out of 20

Table 50: Numerical rating of the speaking proficiency rubric

To reach the score, each student gets in each criteria, the following procedure was followed:

counting the row scores (i.e., the total number of correct items (row score) =the total score

possible - the cumulative penalties due to errors) (Henning, 1987) for each criterion, summing

them and then dividing them by the number of errors and language items that second year

students might encounter in their spoken language. The final row score for each criterion is

transformed to percentage according to a linear transformation format (Henning, ibid, p.28):

Y=X1𝑂𝑂/𝐶

Y: the percentage score

X: the raw score

C: the total number of items (i.e., the highest possible score)

The percentage score is matched with the 4 marks of each criterion as follows: (0%- 25%) =

1/ (26%-50%) = 2/ (51%- 75%) = 3/ (76%-100%) =4. Finally, the obtained marks for each

criterion are summed to form the final speaking test score of each participant.

7.4.2 Listening Assessment Procedure

As interactive listening is the main concern of this study rather than transactional one,

its assessment takes place in this part of the study; however, there has been much debate about

the real meaning of interactive listening and more research on how to judge this type of

listening. Accordingly, the present research depended heavily on a reliable study conducted

235

by Vandergrift in 1997. Vandergrift investigated his students’ interactive listening

proficiency. Based on Rost and Ross (1991) study findings which correlate the choice of

strategy and the language proficiency of the listeners, Vandergrift (ibid) conducted his study

in which he correlated the use of reception strategies Rost and Ross (ibid) found (see Chapter

One, subsection 1.2.1 Definition of Interactive Listening, p.25) to students’ language

proficiency. Firstly, he ascertained his students’ proficiency level using ACTFL/ETS Oral

Proficiency Interview (OPI). Afterwards, he used a checklist to record any reception strategy

use. Finally, the researcher correlated the observed strategies with the students’ proficiency

level.

In the present study, the same procedure was applied. We have recorded the students

reception strategy use according to the same checklist (see appendix IX) as it was reliable (it

was reviewed by a trainer assistant) and proved to be efficient to detect any observable

reception strategies (according to Vandergrift study results). Afterwards, the mean number of

the reception strategies observed in both experimental groups in pre/post and delayed post

tests are correlated with Vandergrift’s findings:

Strategy Novice Intermediate

Total Mean Number Total Mean Number

Global reprise 1.77 1.14

Specific reprise 0.54 0.43

Hypothesis testing 1.31 2.43

Uptakes 10.77 41.0

Faking 2.35 1.28

Kinesics 29.85 6.43

Table 51: Mean number of reception strategies observed by ACTFL Oral Proficiency

Level (Adapted from Vandergrift, 1997, p. 499)

Noteworthy, this checklist ensured the detection of verbal as well as nonverbal

reception strategies listeners used to prompt further input or solicit clarification of meaning,

236

thus this checklist aims at checking the nature and frequency of reception strategy use. All the

strategies checked in Vandergrift’s study are grouped in table 49, each investigates different

pattern of strategy (for their explanation of these patterns, see Chapter One, subsection 1.2.1

Definition of Interactive Listening, p.25). In the present study, forward inference is included

in the categories of analysis as some observable uses of this strategy were detected, unlike

Vandergrift’s study in which no instances of forward inferencing were noticed. According to

Vandergrift (1997), the use forward inferencing in his study was merely indirect through

nonverbal messages.

7.5 Analysis and Interpretation of the Results

7.5.1 Listening Pre-test Results

Reception Strategies Exp. G. 1 Exp. G. 2

Mean number Mean number

Global Reprise 0.55 0.3

Specific Reprise 0.15 0.0

Hypothesis testing 0.1 0.05

Forward Inference 0.85 0.7

Uptakes 10.95 11.35

Faking 3.5 2.95

Kinesics 3.7 3

Table 52: Mean number of reception strategies observed in both experimental groups in

the pre-test

Table 50 presents the average number of times each strategy was observed in each

experimental group. Participants in Exp. G.1 used largely uptakes (10.95 times) to prompt

further input from the interlocutors in the form of continuation signals such as nodes and

237

verbal paralinguistic signals ‘yes’ with a tone which indicates the interest in what is being

said. The observation of the reception strategies, listeners in Exp. G. 1 used revealed the very

rare use of the backchannels such mmm and uh-huh. This observation signals participants’

lack of management of the communication and the over reliability on words to maintain

interpersonal interactions, thus participants are not cooperative listeners in this point of time.

The second ranking reception strategy, listeners in the Exp. G.1 used, is the Kinesics (3.7

times), mostly cocked head, glazed eyes, furrowed eyebrows, and infrequently confused

looks and gazed hands. Faking understanding was also observed in a high number of times

(3.5) which signals the difficulties listeners face to understand and hence to interact. Forward

inferencing was observed with mean number (0.85). The use of this strategy was partly direct

and partly imperceptible as it was ascertained through the interlocutors’ response ‘yes’ to

confirm the assumption indirectly. Global reprise is the fifth strategy used by listeners in this

group according to (0.55) number of use observed, notably, participants in this group asked

for repetition or rephrasing in direct or indirect way such as ‘could you please repeat’ or ‘I did

not hear what you said’. (0.1) is the number of times participants checked their understanding,

likewise asking for repetition of specific word or information (specific reprise) has been also

used by very few participants in this group (0.15 times) covertly. One of the interesting

examples is when one of the participants asked for repetition indirectly saying: “a lot?”

waiting to complete the utterance and clarify the meaning and the interlocutor replied: “a

large increase in social media”.

Similar to the Exp. G. 1 results, the uptakes were mostly used (11.35 times) by the

participants in Exp. G. 2. Noticeably in this group, listeners encouraged the interlocutor to

continue speaking by signalling continuation though nods, verbal ‘yes’ as well as through the

backchannel ‘uh huh’. Kinesics (3 times) was also the pattern strategy listeners used to seek

clarification through the same strategies observed in exp. g.1, however, participants in this

238

group resorted another kinesics which is raising eyebrows which indicated a disproval with

the interlocutors’ ideas. Worth to mention, participants in this group did not find it easy, as

well, to interact, obviously as they faked understanding in (2.95) times. Whereas, (0.7 times)

represent the use of forward inferencing which was more direct than in exp. g. 1as most of the

time forward inferencing was used as a continuation of the interlocutors’ turns, especially

when they feel confused about what to say. Global reprise was used infrequently (0.3 times),

however, in the few times participants sought clarification through asking for repetition or

rephrasing, no clear indication of the use of this strategy has been observed as listeners used it

imperceptibly. As a result it was noticed through the interlocutors’ response that tended to

rephrase or repeat what they said whenever they felt they need to. This result is probably due

to the fact that participants in this group are approximately of the same level or participants do

not know the proper way to request for repetition or rephrasing. A slighter mean number

(0.05) which represent the use of the strategy ‘hypothesis testing’ has been observed as the

listeners most probably focus more on their turn in the interaction over the exchange of

meaning with the interlocutor. We can say that listeners before the intervention could not be

part of collaborative exchange of meaning. Surprisingly, all the participants did not request

for repetition or rephrasing of a specific part of an utterance. This may well be due to the

familiarity and the clarity of the ideas participants used, to discuss the topic.

7.5.1.1 Comparison of the Results Obtained by the Experimental Group 01 and the

Experimental Group 02 in the Listening Pre-test

When comparing both experimental groups in terms of the most frequent strategy used,

it is clear that uptakes are the most popular strategies used before the intervention by

frequency of use (10.95 and 11.35 in exp. g.1 and exp. g.2 respectively). However, this mean

number matches approximately the uptakes’ mean number observed in ‘Novice’ level in

Vandergrift study (10.77).

239

Kinesics use which is also reported by participants in exp. g.1 and exp. g.2 to seek

clarification by the average use (3.7 and 3 respectively) is far more the mean number

observed in the novice level in Vandergrift (1997) (29.85) and intermediate level (6.43). This

result may well be explained by participants’ familiarity with the topic so they rarely

expressed confusion about what they listened to.

Students in exp. g. 1 and exp. g. 2 confirmed understanding in very rare occasions (0.1

and 0.05 respectively) even less than novice students (Vandergrift, 1997) who used it (1.31

times). Similarly, the faking strategy use in both experimental groups (3.5 and 2.95 times in

exp. g.1 and exp. g.2 respectively) is close to its use in the novice level which exhibited the

same strategy use by (2.38 times) according to Vandergrift (ibid) study. Global reprise and

specific reprise were occasionally used in both experimental groups, the same way they were

observed in the novice level in Vandergrift study (1.77 and 0.45 times respectively)

The Comparison of the mean number of the strategies used in both experimental groups

with participants’ proficiency level Vandergrift (ibid) found in his study, allowed clear

estimation of the students’ listening proficiency level before the intervention. To interpret the

comparison results in the most straightforward way possible, especially in the light of some

discriminatory results, the focus is rather on the most appearing reception strategies in both

groups in relation with the proficiency level. To put it simply, the most frequent strategy used,

‘uptakes’, matches the mean number normally used by novice level, while all the other

strategies are little beyond or beneath the average use in the novice level too. By conclusion,

it is then estimated that participants in both experimental groups are more novice-oriented in

listening.

240

7.5.2 Listening Post-test Results

Reception Strategies Exp. G. 1 Exp. G. 2

Mean number Mean number

Global Reprise 0.30 0.5

Specific Reprise 0.05 0.45

Hypothesis testing 0.2 0.7

Forward Inference 1.5 1.7

Uptakes 21.5 24

Faking 2 1.75

Kinesics 0.6 0.8

Table 53: Mean number of reception strategies observed in both experimental groups in

the post-test

Uptakes remained the most frequent strategy (21.5) used by the participants of exp. g. 1,

more precisely; there seems an increase in number of use of nods and verbal ‘yes’ as

continuation signals, but paralinguistic, namely backchannels are never observed whenever

listeners want to signal to their interlocutors to continue speaking. Faking remained in the

second place of the frequency use scale as represented by (2 mean number of times) which

indicates participants’ continual difficulty in maintaining the interaction. A slight increase

found in forward inference (1.5 mean number) however this time with more verbal messages

which indicates a sign cognitive control of the language to display clarification need during

communication. Kinesics also rested in use, however, with slight number of times (0.6) in

which cocked head was less used by participants whenever they show interest in what the

interlocutor is saying. This result may well be due to the students’ exposure to more

interactions (during the simulations) which allow them to convey their lack of understanding

and interest covertly, and thus became hard to observe their use of this strategy. In the same

241

manner, global reprise remained in use by frequency of use (0.30). This small mean number

of times indicates participants increased level of understanding as they relied infrequently on

seeking clarification by asking for repetition or rephrasing. An approximate number of times

to pre-test results (0.2) were observed when participants in exp. g.1 tended to confirm their

hypothesis. This slight number of times attests the fact that participants encounter very few

occasions when they have doubt of their understanding. Specific reprise was hardly observed

in this group as (0.05) was the number of times this strategy used. This may be explained by

participants’ total reliance on the global understanding or they were overwhelmed by the flow

of the interaction, thus they felt no need to break its flow by asking for specific information

clarification.

In Exp. G.2 the uptakes have increased to reach (24 times) which demonstrate the fact

that listeners relied heavily on the nonverbal messages to breed more input. Faking

comprehension is also observed in this group, thus participants still use this strategy but with

less frequency (1.75). Participants still avoid admitting inability to understand or do not listen

inattentively to what the interlocutors’ speech, so they fake understanding without

determination. Forward inference, in contrast witnessed very slight increase (1.7 times).

Participants in this group overtly indicate current understanding by asking question such as

‘but if you have money you’ll be happy?’ and sometimes used this strategy covertly as it was

observed through the interlocutors response e.g., ‘this is what I wanted to say’, ‘yes

something like that’ or simply ‘yes’ implying approving the understanding estimation.

Kinesics use has decreased (0.8 times), while global reprise, specific reprise and hypothesis

check use elevated (0.5, 0.45, and 0.7 times respectively). In one hand, for global reprise,

students tended to seek clarification covertly as well as overtly by using certain expressions

such as ‘I’m afraid I did not catch your point’, ‘I misunderstood you, what do you mean’ or

‘why do you say that?’ These examples confirmed the aforementioned justification that

242

participants did not know how to seek clarification before the experiment as after they have

taught how to ask for repetition and rephrasing during the simulations, they felt more

confident to prompt further clarification verbally. Hypothesis testing also was partly overt as

it is elicited by the following interesting examples: ‘another person you mean?’, ‘because of

money?’ (with falling intonation), and ‘what I can understand from what you say that money

can’t buy happiness’. While, in the other hand specific reprise was totally imperceptible.

7.5.2.1 Comparison of the Results Obtained by the Experimental Group 01 and the

Experimental Group 02 in the Listening Pre/Post-test

All the strategies observed in the pre-test are present in the post-test, however, with

changes in frequency of use. Some strategies’ use was increased such as uptakes which

elevated considerably from (10.95 and 11.35 to 21.5 and 24 times) in exp. g.1 and exp.g.2

respectively. Despite the fact that this mean number of use could not reach the total mean

number of this strategy as used by intermediate students in Vandergrift (1997) study, but its

closeness to mean number of uptakes observed in high intermediate ( 27. 67 times) is clear.

Hypothesis testing and forward inferencing also are quantitatively as well as qualitatively

different. Although hypothesis testing strategy use elevated, it falls in the novice category as

its use matches the low novice level ascertained by Vandergrift (ibid, p.499) (0.75 times)

when it was slightly beneath this average number in the pre-test.

The other strategies which decreased in frequency of use are kinesics, global reprise,

and faking. As far as kinesics are concerned, a quantitative difference of about (3.1) in exp.

g.1 and (2.2) in exp. g.2 was recorded. Consequently, listeners in both groups felt less need to

seek clarification either nonverbally or verbally as global reprise decreased by a difference of

(0.22) in exp. g.1 and slightly increased by (0.2) in exp.g.2. The reason behind this increase is

probably due to that participants sought clarification overtly besides covertly owing to the

243

explicit instruction followed in the simulation activities especially when students needed to

express inability to comprehend. Faking has also achieved slight attenuation in terms of the

average number of strategy use of about (1.5) decrease in exp.g.1 and (1.2) in exp. g.2.

In the post-test, kinesics (0.6 times in exp. g.1 and 0.8 in exp. g.2) in comparison with

Vandergrift’s study results, fall under the category ‘high intermediate’ (0.67times) (p.499).

Furthermore, both means numbers achieved in faking in the post-test fall between the mean

numbers found in mid and high intermediate levels (2 and 0.33 respectively) as found by

Vandergrift (ibid, p.499). Important to mention, all the prior comparisons are done in light of

the fact that the aforementioned strategies use has decreased. Consequently, the post-test

results revealed the fact participants in both experimental groups developed their listening

proficiency as they became intermediate-oriented in listening.

7.5.3 Listening Delayed Post-test Results

Reception Strategies Exp. G. 1 Exp. G. 2

Mean number Mean number

Global Reprise 0.25 0.2

Specific Reprise 0.1 0.1

Hypothesis testing 0.2 0.85

Forward Inference 1.4 1.3

Uptakes 20 22.8

Faking 1.7 1.5

Kinesics 0.7 0.9

Table 54: Mean number of reception strategies observed in both experimental groups in

the delayed post-test

244

Likewise, exp.g.1 showed high frequency of uptakes use (20 times), so participants in

this group kept relying on continuation signals which indicated full understanding and

listeners’ intention to continue having interpersonal relationship which their interlocutors in

the interaction. Faking, as usual, is the second strategy, participants resorted (1.7) whenever

they try to solve misunderstanding problem. However, it is observed that the number of times

of use of this strategy decreased which may evince the fact that listeners’ rate of

understanding increased and they are no longer afraid of signalling their inability to

understand through for example forward inference which slightly declined to (1.4 times) .

Surprisingly, kinesics has slightly increased by (0.1) which may be owing to the attenuation

of continuous interaction in the activities students have after the intervention (simulation

activities). The use the global reprise is kept gradually diminishing after the intervention,

whereas specific reprise and hypothesis testing revealed slight increase, however not

remarkable one. This may be explained by the nature of the topic the interlocutors discuss in

this test.

The uptakes revealed a slight decrease in number of use in exp. g. 2, one month after

they had simulation activities with the observation of using the same strategies noticed in the

post-test, nods, ‘yes’, and paralinguistic features mainly ‘uh huh’. This decrease might well

be due to the increased confidence in using both verbal and non-verbal signals to solve

misunderstanding problems. This orientation in seeking clarification is confirmed by the

slight mean number (0.9) which represents the use of body language through kinesics to

request clarification. The attenuation of body language and facial expressions is accompanied

with global reprise decline which achieved (0.2 times) only. Surprisingly, forward inference

revealed to be depleted to reach (1.3 times), likewise faking which reached (1.5 times). This

means that participants had fewer comprehension problems in an interactional setting and

they resolved any comprehension difficulties by signalling them directly to the interlocutor

245

through global reprise and hypothesis testing which increased to (0.85) in this group, or

forward inference strategies instead of avoiding mentioning their inability to understand.

7.5.3.1 Comparison of the Results Obtained by the Experimental Group 01 and the

Experimental Group 02 in the Listening Delayed Post-test

The overall assessment of listeners’ behaviour one month after the experiment revealed

a slight decline in most of the strategies. This is attributed to the absence of long interactions

students used to have during the simulations. In spite of the deflation of uptakes (20 times in

exp. 1 and 22.8 in exp. g.2), the slight increase in kinesics’ use (0.7 times in exp. g.1 and 0.9

in exp. g.2) and forward inference (1.4 times in exp. g.1 and 1.3 times in exp. g.2), we can

estimate the same level of the participants as the deflation was too small to recognise, besides

it may be due to the nature of the topic discussed in the delayed post-test.

Furthermore, the deflation of global reprise (0.25 times in exp. g.1 and 0.2 times in exp.

g.2) and faking (1.7 times in exp. g.1 and 1.5 times in exp. g.2) has been seen qualitatively

positive. These results confirmed the long term impact of simulations especially in terms of

confidence in expressing misunderstanding and the involvement nature of these activities

which allow listeners to be fully immersed in any interactional setting.

Hypothesis testing mean number was steady in exp. g.1 and little raised in exp. g. 2

(0.85). This increase is an indication of moving towards an advanced level in listening

according to Vandergrift’s study (1997) results although the mean numbers achieved by both

groups are near to the one achieved by low novice learners (0.75) (Vandergrift, ibid, p.499).

In short, the high levels of uptake, hypothesis testing and forward inference strategies

and the low levels in kinesics and faking strategies, in comparison with the results obtained in

the pre-test drive us to make the following assumption: students in the delayed post-test

exhibited intermediate-oriented listening level.

246

7.5.4 Speaking Pre-test Results

The t-test was applied to detect any significant difference between the scores in both

experimental groups. Particularly, the dependent t-test was employed and “within subject”

statistical test was applied to determine any significant difference in the proficiency level

between both groups before and after the intervention.

Groups Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error t Sig.

Exp. G. 1: Pre-test Score 9.65 2.02 0.46 0.08 2.09

P<0.05

Exp. G. 2: Pre-test Score 9.85 2.27 0.52 0.01 2.09

P<0.05

Table 55: Descriptive statistics of the pre-test speaking skill mean score

The findings, in table 53, show that the average mean of the experimental group1 was

(9.65) and its standard deviation was (2.02). This low value of standard deviation indicates

that participants’ pre-test scores are clustered around the mean average (9.65); consequently,

participants in this group had few differences in their speaking proficiency. After deduction

we reached the following result: exp. g.1 was not a highly mixed-ability group. The average

mean score of the experimental group 2, as indicated in the same table, was calculated as

(9.85) and standard deviation for this group was (2.27). The value of the standard deviation in

this group yielded the same interpretation reached for exp. g.1, that is to say participants in

exp. g. 2 had also small gap in their speaking skill levels. This interpretation is logically true

as both experimental groups were matched in their pre-test results as a crucial condition of

quasi-experimental design. In spite of the fact that the mean number of the exp. g.2 signals

that this group had better range of scores than exp. g.1, the statistical interpretation did not

show any significant difference in their proficiency level as the t value was much less than the

2-tailed p value (2.093 < 0.05).

247

7.5.5 Speaking Post-test Results

Experimental group 1 Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error

Exp. G. 1: Post-test score 10.9 1.85 0.42

Exp. G.2: Post-test score 11.35 1.66 0.38

Table 56: Descriptive statistics of the post-test speaking skill mean score

Table 54 indicates the fairly big difference between the pre-test mean and post-test

mean of both experimental groups. These results clearly reveal that students speaking

competence has positively changed as their post average means (10.9) and (11.35) are higher

than the initial means (9.65) and (9.85) in both groups respectively. It has also been shown in

this table the decrease in the standard deviation value as in exp.g.1 the standard deviation was

(1.85) and in exp. g.2 the standard deviation became (1.66). This decrease has deeply offered

an insight on the improvement of the range of scores in both experimental groups after the

intervention, as a result it can be deduced that the small diversity in the participants’ speaking

skills in both groups has been bridged, in other words the students’ speaking abilities became

much closer to each other.

7.5.5.1 Comparison of the Results Obtained by the Experimental Group 01 and the

Experimental Group 02 in the Speaking Pre/Post-tests

Table 57: The dependent t-test for speaking pre/post-test

Groups N Mean Std.

deviation

Std.

error

t df Sig.

Experimental

group 1

20 1.25 1.88 0.43 2.90 19 2.093

P<0.05

Experimental

group 2

20 1.5 1.83 0.42 3.57 19 2.093

P< 0.05

248

To determine whether these differences between pre and post-tests scores are

statistically significant, the paired scores for each participant in both experimental groups

were analysed for any statistical difference using dependent t-test:

Paired sample test was applied to the scores of both groups to see any statistical

difference in their oral proficiency level. The t value obtained in both experimental groups are

(2.90) and (3.57) and both are higher than the critical value of t (2.093) in the t- table with the

degree of freedom of 19 and the level of significance of 0.05 for the two-tailed hypothesis.

Consequently, the alternative hypotheses stated at the beginning of this research are

confirmed. It has been proved through these results that simulation activities have led to an

improvement in the participants speaking proficiency and thus to an enhancement of their

communication oral proficiency.

7.5.6 Speaking Delayed Post-test

Experimental group 1 Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error

Delayed Post-test score 11.9 2.22 0.51

Delayed Post-test score 12 2.17 0.49

Table 58: Descriptive statistics of the delayed post-test speaking skill mean score

At the end of this research project, both groups have shown reasonable steady progress

in their oral communication proficiency. The exp. g. 1 has achieved the average score of

(11.9) as compared to the post-test mean value (10.9) and exp. g.2 has achieved the mean

score (12) compared to the post average score (11.35). A slight increase in the mean score of

both experimental groups in comparison with the post-test results has revealed the consistent

change which was detected in the post intervention. The standard deviation values of both

groups have revealed another significant change. The standard deviation values have

unexpectedly slightly increased in comparison to the post-test standard deviation values (1.85)

and (1.66) in exp. g.1 and exp. g.2 respectively. The standard deviation values which were

249

achieved in the delayed post-test, (2.22 in exp. g.1) and (2.17 in exp. g.2), were very close to

their counterpart values achieved by the same groups in the pre-test (2.02 in exp. g.1) and

(2.27 in exp. g.2). Thus, the 40 subjects in both groups have shown slight dispersion in the

participants’ oral communicative proficiency level, closer to one they started with in this

experiment. These results have suggested that the internal differences among the subjects

have been expanded one month after having the simulation activities.

7.5.6.1 Comparison of the Results Obtained by the Experimental Group 01 and the

Experimental Group 02 in the Speaking Post-test and Delayed Post-test

Groups N Mean

Difference

Std.

deviation

Std.

Error

t df Sig.

Experimental group 1 20 0.45 1.12 0.25 1.8 19 2.093

P<0.05

Experimental group 2 20 0.55 0.95 0.22 2.5 19 2.093

P< 0.05

Table 59: The dependent t-test for speaking post/delayed post-test

According to Table 57, the mean of communicative testing scores in the delayed post-

test of total 40 subjects was significantly less than in the post-test (0.45) in exp. g. 1 and

(0.55) in exp. g.2. In one hand, the t value obtained in exp. g.1 (1.8) is less than the critical t

value (2.093) at .05 level significance and indicates no significant difference in the

proficiency level. In the other hand, the t value achieved in exp. g. 2 (2.5) is slightly higher

than the critical value (2.093) and reveals marginally improvement in their speaking

proficiency level. The results can be attributed to students’ ability to retain the long term

effects of simulations.

250

7.6 Discussion of the Results

7.6.1 Listening Proficiency Results

This section of the study will discuss first the analysis of the reception strategies

observed in both experimental groups in different points of time during the experiment in

relation to the proficiency level change due to simulation activities. Second, a discussion of

the reception strategies in relation to the cognitive and social constraints will follow.

Vandergrift’s (1997) checklist proved to be useful tool to detect any observable

reception strategies participants use in interactional setting. No modifications have been

imported to this checklist, except for the inclusion of forward inferencing as a category of

analysis as it was clear that listeners were verbally checking understanding assumptions. The

analysis of the tests’ results revealed that listeners use verbal as well as non-verbal messages

to maintain interpersonal relationship in the interaction.

In the pre-test, students expressed their ability to solve misunderstanding problems like

they indicated in their questionnaire when 65% of exp. g.1 students and 75% of exp.g.2

students opted for the choice ‘I can’. However, their ability was different in manner,

variability and frequency. Participants in both experimental groups relied heavily on uptakes

that prompted further input from the interlocutor; however, its average use in this test

replicates the same mean number observed in the novice level as found by Vandergrift (ibid).

This strategy has witnessed gradual increase in the post-test and steady development in the

delayed post-test. The linguistic knowledge enlargement and the command over its use which

result in more comfort during interaction in the target language, as Vandergrift (ibid) puts,

seem to be conducive to the increase in the use of this particular strategy. Another evidenced

improvement was found in forward inferencing throughout the pre/post and delayed post-test,

confirmed advanced level the participants in both experimental groups attained especially

when considering Rost and Ross (1991) study which proved that forward inference strategy is

251

used only by the more advanced listeners (as cited in Vandergrift, ibid, p.500). Likewise,

Hypothesis testing gradually increased with each test. The last two strategies revealed a

qualitative difference at each successive test, that is to say instead of overtly seeking

clarification or verifying comprehension, more subtle ways to signal these communication

needs were observed. This is according to Vandergrift (1997) is a sign of becoming more

proficient as there was “less need to … verify comprehension” (Vandergrift, ibid, p.500) as a

result of the internalisation of the language.

The internalisation of the linguistic knowledge is believed to be due to the simulation

activities which overlapped the pre/post-tests in this study as this type of activities is

considered as untaught events (Jones, 1982, p. 2), as a result participants acquire how to

communicate and thus use reception strategies, adhering as an implicit need during simulation

activities. When a communication breakdown occurs, participants will be automatically

involved in negotiating meaning to find the way to understand each other, besides they use

verbal and nonverbal messages to clarify meaning. Accordingly, the participants became more

comfortable with the language use in interactional setting. This comfort led some listeners to

seek clarification or further input covertly/imperceptibly, while those who solved

misunderstanding problems overtly revealed high and good command over the linguistic

knowledge they used to fulfil this need. The successful overt verbal behaviour of listeners

observed in the post-test and the delayed post-test is believed to be due to the instructional

framework followed in the briefing stage for the simulations in which students were provided

with lists of expressions they were recommended to use whenever a need to clarify, verify or

prompt further meaning is urged.

The real-time aspect, simulations brought to language use, freed the students from the

cognitive constrains that might prevent them to perform better in real-life situations especially

as simulation involve high proportion of realism. Specific reprise strategy, unlike

252

Vandergrift’s study results, was either absent or very rare in use in the pre-test, as observed in

both experimental groups; however, after implementing the research treatment, some traces of

this strategy use, have been noticed. The appearance of this strategy, in spite of its little use,

signals the fact that simulations stimulate the clarification of specific information at local use.

The growth or the appearance of uptakes, hypothesis testing, forward inference and specific

reprise signals the intermediate level of the listeners, Vandergrift (1997) notes.

A marked decline in kinesics, global reprise and faking was also observed throughout

the three tests employed in this study. Overt kinesics, global reprise and faking, in the pre-test,

were all signs of novice level. However with their decline, students move to be more

proficient according Vandergrift (ibid) who says that the more these strategies disappear, the

more the listener becomes proficient. The advanced proficiency level is accompanied with

empowering the students cognitive ability as the more they understand, the less they

encounter doubt in understanding and thus urge to ask repetition or rephrasing.

In short, the successive exposure to consistent real-like interactions during simulations,

helped second year students to develop automatic internalised response and controlled

feedback whenever a communication breakdown appears. This has been proved by

Vandergrift’ saying (ibid): “with prolonged language exposure … learners internalized more

language. This exposure allowed them process groups of words (“chunking”), leaving

attentional energy for giving feedback to the speaker, continually advancing the conversation”

(p.501). The cognitive maturation, hence, helped EFL students, in this study, to identify the

problem and treat it. The prolonged language exposure, students in this study benefited from

through simulations, involved students more in the language use and thus they became

cooperative partners in the communication. This is what real social interaction requires

according to Vandergrift (ibid), joint incorporation from all involved interlocutors to advance

the conversation. The research hypothesis stated at the beginning of this study ‘ when teachers

253

apply simulation activities in second year EFL classrooms, this would develop listening

proficiency’ has been partly confirmed as the increase or the decrease in the reception

strategies use, which have direct influence on culminating the advanced proficiency levels,

was conservatively considerable. To enlarge the reception strategies use in interactional

setting upon shortly, some implications about simulations’ implementation have to be made.

7.6.2 Speaking Proficiency Results: A Qualitative Analysis

Despite the fact that a considerable amount of participants (over the half) in exp. g. 1

confessed their grammatical weakness and the same proportion in exp. g. 2 claimed the

opposite, as has been revealed in the questionnaire, the pre-test results show a severe

deficiency in students’ grammar in both experimental groups. The test before the intervention

has detected the most problematic areas students suffer from: the past tense, subject-verb

agreement and prepositions. On the post-test, the results show students’ effective command

over the grammatical structures for example students tend to use more subordinate clauses.

The correctness and variance of the grammatical structures is attributed to students’ self-

evaluation of their simulations in the debriefing session which allowed them to spot their

mistakes. Besides the pre-task employed before the use of simulations gave the students a

deep insight into the genre they were required to communicate. This procedure allowed the

students more flexibility and comfort when they use the language and thus resulted in

complex correct grammar. Furthermore, students seem to distinguish between standard

grammar and spoken grammar as they used ellipsis, contractions, and tag questions in more

occasion than they used them in the pre-test. Another significant grammar improvement has

been revealed which is the manipulation of language functions. Before the intervention, the

results show the students’ ability to signal the right language function, however, they were

unable to use the appropriate lexical phrases and expressions to signal them. Due to the

naturalistic use of language and variable situations provided in the simulations, students

254

succeeded to retrieve the expressions, they learned in the pre-task whenever they needed to

convey language functions.

Vocabulary has witnessed an average improvement in the post-test. Before intervention

students revealed a limited vocabulary use. Students’ vocabulary was characterised by its

simplicity, weak collocations, and narrow variety. On the post-test, some students could use a

greater variety of vocabulary and correct grammatical collocation, however lexical collocation

seem to be problematic to students. This fact is attributed to the nature of the topic being

discussed in the test. With respect to the humble improvement of vocabulary, which was most

probably due to the explicit focus on vocabulary use while evaluating the simulations,

students seem to recognise and use the words in terms of their suitability to the topic being

discussed. Furthermore, students’ negotiation of meaning during the simulations helped the

students supply the appropriate lexis in the social context. Another helping strategy helped the

students to use vocabulary effectively is providing the students with ready-made expressions

they can use to convey the language functions. This strategy helped formalize and vary the

students’ vocabulary in the limited time vocabulary was used effectively in the post-test.

Over the half of the students in both experimental groups opted for the option slightly

difficult in exp. g. 1 and the option difficult in exp. g. 2 in the students’ questionnaire results,

when they were asked about pronunciation. These results have been proved by the pre-test

results as the main problems noticed in students’ pronunciation is stress and intonation. The

results reveal also good ability in the articulation of English sounds; however, these findings

show that students seem unaware of the assimilation of words phonetically. On the post-test a

considerable but not deep improvement has been realised in intonation, stress and no

improvement has been seen in students’ ability to assimilate sounds. On one hand, this

unsatisfactory development of pronunciation is most probably owing to the long training

students need to develop their pronunciation. The slight progress noticed in the post-test, is on

255

the other hand, due to exposing the students to authentic samples of spoken language in the

preparatory stage for the simulations which facilitated the use of pronunciation features

during the simulated performance. Besides, the self and peer evaluation, students were

engaged in the post-task (follow up session), helped the learners identify their own and their

peers pronunciation errors through competing together to look for mistakes and provide

alternative realizations of the errors or check their dictionaries.

Before the experiment, students’ spoken performance was incoherent in general. When

speaking about fluency, pauses are one of the important speech characteristics that are

counted to judge students’ fluency. Students' speech delivery was in general slow and

utterances were characterized by few pauses, hesitations that impeded communication

Students had many incomplete sentences which required very often the interruption of their

peers. Even when the students’ spoken discourse did not contain many pauses, nevertheless, it

was characterized by illogic sequences of thoughts as students used approximately no

cohesive devices. The aforementioned deficiency of students’ discourse before the experiment

can be attributed to the students’ over-thinking about their ideas and how they can get them

across to the listener rather than organise them in well-structured discourse. After the

experiment, students’ discourse was moderately organised coherently and cohesively. It

contained grammatical and lexical references to combine the stretches of utterances logically.

Besides, exposing students to samples of authentic spoken discourse, the teachers’ role in

drawing the students’ attention to how speakers organise their utterances and plan their

thoughts, and the memorised expressions they learned in the pre-task stage espoused the

students thinking about how to organise their ideas and utterances. Planning discourse was

improved as students became more aware of the importance of introducing, concluding and

changing the topic. The enhancement of the discourse overall structure is because of different

factors, among them drawing the students’ attention to the absence of the cohesive devices

256

and discourse markers in their discourse in the simulations and their effect on the spontaneity

and clarity of their performance when they analysed, with the teacher, their recorded

simulations in the debriefing stage. Moreover, as students became more motivated because of

the simulation activities, they indulged in the conversation without hesitation.

Students’ interactional competence has remarkably developed. On the pre-test students

could manage their interaction, but no properly; turn-taking was not respected, some of

adjacency pairs were not achieved, for example in question-answer adjacency pair listeners

ignored the question and move on in the conversation. The pre-task stage helped students to

organise their conversation and manage turn-taking by raising their consciousness towards the

role of the listener in the interaction. Thus, students were encouraged to be involved through

checking their understanding, encouraging the use of backchannels, showing interest and

asking for clarification. It goes without saying that watching video recordings of students’

simulations sheds some light on particular conversation features that help students to keep the

conversation going as students get authentic evaluation of their speaking-hearer

communicative act.

Related to the analysis above, the statistical measurement proved the aforementioned

improvement of the speaking skill components. In other words, it has been proved that the

implementation of simulation technique improved the student’s speaking skill. Worth

mentioning, both experimental groups started with the same conditions; they had no

differences in their speaking proficiency level and the internal differences in each group were

slightly noticeable. After the treatment, the result of the students’ speaking performance

showed that communication oral performance has improved in both experimental groups.

This interpretation was supported by the paired sample t-test which highlighted the decrease

in the students’ speaking proficiency discrepancy which was revealed in the pre-test. The

conclusion which can be drawn from these results is that simulation activities could manage

257

mixed ability groups by attenuating the differences among the individuals. Students’ learning

styles, lack of commitment, personal conflicts, shyness and students working primarily for the

final mark which lead to speaking proficiency level internal individual distinction could be

treated through simulation activities as this kind of activities is interactive, immersive,

enjoyable, and naturalistic. Besides it requires full cooperation between all the individuals

which in turn help create a relaxed and friendly atmosphere for sharing learning in the

classroom. The alternative habits students acquired after having simulation activities have

been revealed in the results of the questionnaire which showed that students’ involvement in

teaching and learning process improved as before the intervention, students tended to be

passive when they joined speaking class. They felt shy and reluctant to speak up and to

express their idea orally. Gradually the data showed the activation of more students.

Therefore, it can be concluded that simulation is completely pertinent to teach speaking. The

delayed test proved the validity of experimental design as any significant improvement in

speaking proficiency level was only due to simulation activities. Students in both

experimental groups could capture the effects of the simulation activities for longer time (one

month after the post intervention), but hardly achieve any significant difference in their

proficiency level when they are no longer engaged in the simulations. All the former

interpretations lead us to confirm the hypothesis: when teachers apply simulation activities,

this would improve second year EFL students’ speaking proficiency. In short, when students’

speaking and listening proficiency have been developed, their communication proficiency has

been enhanced as well.

All the results reached so far, out of all the experimental tools used in this study

(questionnaires and tests), promote the implementation of simulation activities in second year

OE classes. Furthermore, this conclusion is supported by the teachers who, despite the fact

that most of them favour role-play than simulations, 90% of them believe that the simulations

258

are ‘effective’ and ‘very effective’ to develop students’ oral/aural communication.

Additionally, the students’ positive attitudes and high interest towards the simulation

activities confirm the conclusion stated above.

7.7 Pedagogical Implications

7.7.1 The Advantage and the Effectiveness of Simulation Activities

Simulation activities are proved to be applicable to second year students as they

showed, like any other EFL students, more interest in authentic and spontaneous language use

which they found in the simulation activities (see Chapter Two, Sub-section 2.4 Simulation in

ELT Context, p.65). According to the students’ questionnaire, the entire exp. g.1 and 85% of

exp. g. 2 held positive attitudes towards simulation activities after experimenting them (see

Chapter Five, p.196) as according to them due to the simulations, they became more

motivated, confident, free, active, and interested and less hesitant, anxious, and embarrassed.

Additionally, the analysis of the teachers’ questionnaire (see Chapter Six, p. 217) reveals that

the majority of the teachers agreed on the necessity to consider and implement this technique

in the second year syllabus. Despite the fact that the plausibility of bringing complex

authentic spoken language to the language classroom is hardly attainable as it has been

believed that authenticity cannot be recreated in the classroom, simulation activities seem not

to conform with this belief because they yielded many technicalities that approach the

student’s first language role or new foreign language role and thus produce the language that

the learner most probably needs in real-life situation (Herbert and Sturtridge, 1979, p. 59)

(See Chapter Two, Sub-section 2.1.6 Simulation vs. Real-life Task, p.57). Therefore

simulation can be an effective platform to teach different aspects of real speaking which

students are going to use when they communicate in real-life situations, including short ideas

units, spoken grammar, fillers and repeats, etc. as seen in Chapter One, Sub-section 1.1.4

Speaking in Real Time, p. 17. Interactional strategies, reception strategies, problem-solving

259

and decision making abilities, and confidence are few among many of the gains students had

in this study due to the interactions in the simulations.

The adequacy and applicability of the simulation activities in OE classes, in particular,

is of paramount importance. Brown (2001) announces the spectrum of learner needs, from

language-based focus on accuracy to message-based focus on interaction, meaning, and

fluency as principles for designing speaking techniques. As has been discussed in Chapter

Two, Sub-section Benefits of Simulation (p. 58), simulation activity helps develop fluency

and interpersonal relationships which promote meaning negotiation. Based on these

assertions, simulation activities seem to be adequate at an earlier stage: first and second years

where the instruction is based primarily on psychological priorities as students want first to

break the bearer that hinders their speech rather than formalize or articulate their English. In

addition, the fact that cannot be ignored is that students in a simulation are going to acquire

the communication behaviors that real conversations necessitate.

Many activities demand effective speakers of the target language to be conducted

successfully, but not in simulation because students are encouraged to operate in real-life

situations which may require adhering to complex linguistic level but not necessary native

like language. All that students have to do in simulations is to immerse themselves in group

work where they share the amount of body of knowledge they learned. The teacher’s role then

is to be careful when forming the groups because operating within the same level in long-term

simulations might be demotivating and less challenging. In this case, the teacher’s

management strategies in designing cooperative work are of paramount importance to ensure

the benefit of the maximum number of students.

260

7.7.2 The Pedagogical Principles of Teaching Speaking and Listening through

Simulation Activities

To help students adhere to the function they should perform in the simulation, every

participant should understand that simulation is not about pretending/acting like a chef

executive officer, but rather doing the job of a chef executive officer. Role play activities

seem to be a good starting point to the explanation of this simulation feature and it might be

followed by a clear briefing about the function being addressed in the simulation. This

briefing can be done in the form of project where participants investigate the function they

will take on deeply, by making research or interviewing real people functioning in the same

job, students supposed to perform during the simulation. The good briefing in this point

would help participants change their internal properties to match the perceived ones found in

the person meant to be replicated in the simulation. In opposition, the biggest challenge for

teachers is to adhere to the right role during the simulation. In the theoretical part for this

thesis, there has been a discussion about the role the teacher s/he should assume during this

type of activity (see Chapter Two, Sub-section 2.4.1 Simulation in the Language Classroom,

p.66). It has been agreed that the teacher’s role in simulations is to be a controller. Jones

(1982, p. 40) clarifies the teacher’s role as follows “a person who controls the flow of traffic,

tries to avoid bottlenecks, but does not tell individual motorists the direction of their

journeys.” This explanation clearly demonstrates the teacher’s role in terms of what he should

not do, that is to say avoiding interference during the task, for example the teacher should not

suggest ideas to participants to solve problems or make decisions because participants are

responsible for solving assigned problems and making decisions in the simulation. Assuming

the controller role could be a hard task for teachers, first some teachers could not prevent

themselves from interfering in students’ learning to ensure better learning, while others are

obliged to interfere because of the students’ overwhelming need for step-by-step guidance.

261

Accordingly, a good explanation and understanding of the simulation activities would ease the

assumption of the students’ role and thus the teachers’ role as well.

The strategy instructional framework would be better if it includes explicit focused-

impetus. Apparently giving learners a list of ready-made expressions they can use in order to

solve communication problems and then provide them with the authentic situation to train

themselves for their use seem not to be enough, the instructional sequence provided by

Vandergrift (1997, p. 502) seem to be properly a systematic way of teaching the reception

strategies in the briefing stage in the simulations. It would include the following three steps:

“(a) provide students with expressions to clarify meaning and confirm comprehension, (b)

develop and present training videos where listeners engaged in interactive listening

demonstrate the use of a number of different reception strategies, and (c) model and practice

the use of the different expressions and strategies in class.” Step (c) would be better achieved

through the simulation activities as has been proved by the results achieved in this study,

while in step (b) it would more efficient to stop the video whenever the listener in the video is

having a communication breakdown and then ask the students to solve it as if they were in his

place. This procedure may give the learners the chance to know their ability to solve

misunderstanding problems and identify what strategy they lack in order to enhance the

communication.

Related to the text above, another pedagogical principle of equal significance appeared

to be important to speak about. The role of audio-visual materials in providing the

comprehensible input which will students’ later on use to produce an effective

comprehensible output is prerequisite in the interaction (simulations) (see Chapter One, Sub-

section 1.1.2 Speaking Paradigm: Comprehension, Production, and Interaction, p. 13). We

noticed that using a variety of materials that are based mainly on listening and watching are

more likely to achieve better teaching and learning results. These materials play great role in

262

eliciting the conversational behaviours students need to perform in the simulation as has been

discussed in Chapter Two, Subsection 2.4.5 The Use of Authentic Video in Simulation, p.72).

In other words, how interlocutors encode meaning, provide feedback, the relationship

between interlocutors and the contextual influence, etc. is clearly explained through the video

Thus, the rationality and the urge to use these multimedia tools is because of the need to hear

and see the native speakers communication behavior in real-life situations rather than only

read about them. This important implication leads us to earnestly demand equipped language

laboratories with the necessary tools, such as tapes and audio-visual means in order to vividly

activate students’ oral communication and help teachers to pragmatically achieve the

aforementioned purpose.

Debriefing is the most critical stage of the simulation process. When there is no

evaluation of what students’ did during the simulation, students will not be able to trace their

language development that is why Jones (1982, p. 47) suggests that it would be a good idea to

start the debriefing by asking each participant to explain briefly what s/he did and why.

Debriefing is about how much students were successful in communication, that is to say

tracing the aspects of the communicative behaviours the teachers concentrated on. This stage

is meant to keep learners involved in the event of the simulation even after they finished it. In

short, the debriefing of the students’ experience of success and failure in the simulation, may

create an ample amount of learning and acquisition which is unsurprisingly, cognitively

undemanding during the simulations. Due to the comprehensible and real nature of the

simulations, students had to focus more on communication rather than the effectiveness and

the manifestation of their language (see Chapter Two, Sub-section Simulation: Acquisition vs.

Learning, p.67).

Finally, a crucial implication is drawn from the experiment results which revealed a

slow change in the reception strategies throughout the three tests employed in this study.

263

Worth to say, this result sheds light on important implication about the use of simulation

activities. The three months students spent in the simulation appeared not to be enough to

trigger more strategy use, thus the reception strategies’ use in the post-test and delayed post-

test was moderately noticeable. This result implied the fact that the simulation’s use can be

prolonged to give the students more times to internalize the linguistic knowledge and thus the

language use.

7.8 Pedagogical Recommendations

This experimental study branches a number of further research lines. First, more time

and effort should be devoted to the enhancement of simulation use in EFL classrooms by

paying more attention to the simulated environment which was the Achilles heel in the

classroom practice due to the shortage of equipment that may help to resemble the real

environment being simulated. There was a total reliance on chairs and tables to resemble the

simulated environment which was conducive to a description of the environment to help the

students to accept the perceived environment. Second, briefing can be one of the important

facets of the future research, especially when it is coined with persuading learners to take on a

function in the simulation. We suggest, in the light of the experience we gained about

simulations through this study, a thorough discussion about the function of the characters

participants would take on in the briefing.

Another recommendation for the future research might focus on the reception strategies

use in relation to unequal relationship in the interaction through the simulation activities. In

other words, students might have been engaged in communication with their teachers,

nonnative speakers with advanced levels and native speakers. This procedure would first

enlarge the students’ perception of the language use in real-life situation where they can meet

interlocutors who have high command over the communication and second give more chances

to encounter and produce variety of reception skills they could not use in peer-to-peer

264

interaction, especially specific reprise and hypothesis testing. Speaking about the reception

strategies which are the motor of interactive listening, more attentional effort should be

devoted to explicitly teach the reception strategies, learners can use during the interaction.

Precisely, students should be explicitly taught to abandon the use of kinesics and faking and

should be encouraged to use more specific reprise and hypothesis testing instead. Within the

same vein, learners can be provided with topics that motivate more negotiation of meaning.

The teacher should apply conscious-raising strategy before and after the simulation in order to

draw the intentional work towards improving the strategy use to enhance the communication.

When speaking about the themes being treated in the simulations, for the Algerian

students it seems hard to adopt others’ (foreign) simulations because of the cultural

background they might be based on. Therefore, it is preferable to design simulations that fit

the students’ social requirements and cultural tendency. However, teaching intercultural

competence through simulations is possible because this type of activities can clearly

illustrate FL culture. When the learner takes part in different simulations, this will give them a

chance to experience temporarily the target language culture. This experience can be

considered as conscious-raising activity towards the differences that exist between his own

culture and the target language culture. Therefore, simulations provide ample opportunities to

deal with the problems of “real” intercultural situations. These simulations would be the first

step towards preparing the students to be integrated in more complex and original simulations

that are designed and implemented in the FL classrooms. Based on the above results and

conclusions, it is then recommended to investigate the effect and the practicability of this

technique especially in the light of the fact that the cultural competence is easy to be

explained but difficult to be performed. Another line of research can trace the effect of

simulation activities on the way students introspect their own performance in relation to the

265

cognitive and social factors that may have impact on strategy use and choice in listening and

communication behaviours in speaking.

Taken in isolation, the results of this study are not restricted to OE classes, but can be

achieved in other classes. Therefore, we can argue that simulation activities should be

experimented with other aspects of English language teaching such as reading skills, writing

skills, grammar, pragmatics, civilization etc. All that is needed is then having the students

expressed an interest in the topic of the proposed simulation which is supposed to answer the

needed criteria, mainly the plausibility in terms of naturalness and practicality. Thereby,

students will desire the simulation activity for the sake of originality as they express

themselves via the target language, not like in role-play activity where they have to pretend

other character and thus feel they are artificially learning.

Being a controller in the simulation activities might be challenging for some teachers,

however staying in the classroom while the simulation takes place is necessary for the

teachers especially to ensure that students translate teacher’s explanations into practice rather

than relying on the teacher to model the different situations under study in his presence.

Perhaps the teacher's being in the classroom will not distract students, but it is still really

difficult to monitor the students’ performance instantly; nevertheless, the teacher should take

notes on the errors out of sight of the students. Thus, in this case recording equipment may be

necessary to detect the physical and verbal behavior during the simulations.

The innovative and pragmatic nature of the simulations breeds sense of fulfillment and

satisfaction in students’ learning. In this study, simulations were used as a pedagogical

learning tool; however, simulations are widely used in the assessment procedure nowadays

when it was only a suggestion several years ago. Jones (1982, p. 77) puts what seems to be a

forthcoming statement about the usefulness of simulations in language testing: “The time

266

seems to be ripe for extending their use . . . particularly in the field of language assessment.”

Investigating the technicalities of the simulations and the right procedures that should be

implemented in the assessment process is a good starting point for future research. Another

area which can be investigated is the construct simulations intend to measure and to what

extent the results can be reliable and accurate. When testing the language per se construct is

clear (see Chapter Two, Sub-section 2.5 Simulation Discourse Analysis, p.74); however, in

other fields, where non-linguistic behavior is investigated, the assessment through simulation

is discriminated so far.

7.9 Limitations of the Study

Although careful procedures were taken soberly to ensure a feasible study, there were

still some limitations due to different factors. Firstly, the first obstacle we faced in the

experiment was due to the sample itself as it was hard to match all the participants in both

experimental groups. The problem was caused by the random assignment of both groups to

the researcher by the department. Besides both groups have small size of approximately 20

students. In fact, this criterion was of minor influence on the experiment results as simulations

are best manageable when implementing in small groups; however, the matching procedure

was difficult as there was a slight chance to find the match of all the students in a very narrow

spectrum of speaking level. Secondly, in regard to the treatment process, there was another

obstacle as due to the fact that students did not know that they were enrolled in an experiment,

the presence of some students was fluctuating. Therefore, some students did not get the full

benefit of all the simulations we had during the experimental period. Another restriction

appeared when dealing with the questionnaire data which was at best suggestive. The

questionnaire’s data reliability was uncertain because of the sincerity of the students’

responses when completing the questionnaire. In spite of the sample deficiencies, the

researcher managed to control the experiment conditions, collect and analyse the findings.

267

When speaking about the treatment, the first restriction faced the researcher was the

unfamiliarity of both experimental groups with the simulation technique, however, this

problem could have been managed as well. Having the former problem solved, we have

encountered another challenge, especially with some students who were shy and reluctant to

speak because of worrying to make mistakes in front of the teacher and their classmates and

others who did not want to be involved in expressing opinion or arguing others opinions. But

again due to the immersive nature of the simulations those students could break these fears

and deficiencies cumulatively by time they got involved in more simulations. In spite of the

fact that time was not a clear constraint in this experiment as OE class was scheduled in two

separate sessions per week, it would have been better if there was a third session in the same

week which was devoted to the debriefing stage. It would be better if this condition has been

achieved as students will still be involved in the simulation events and remember what they

exactly did in the simulation. Along with time constraints, place constraint is of high

importance to satisfy all the conditions for the simulation. First there was lack of equipment

which may help create the simulated environment for the simulations. Second, laboratories,

where the largest part of the preparation for the simulations takes place, were not fully

equipped and sometimes unavailable.

Conclusion

As for conclusion, the results of this study which are reported out of an experiment have

strong evidenced conclusions. In particular, the results validated the two study hypotheses

stated: simulation enhances the students’ speaking and listening proficiency, and it boosts

their communication. The pre-test results revealed very weak command over the reception

strategies. Students relied heavily on paralinguistic features of language due to their weak

language package. The post-test results showed positive effect of the simulation activities on

students’ communication as their speaking and listening have improved. Students were much

268

closer to the native listener’s behaviour when they start using explicit and direct requests for

clarification of meaning. Simulations also helped students enhance their fluency, vocabulary

and interactional competence. The instructional treatment succeeded in improving the

classroom atmosphere which was reflected in the positive attitudes, high interest and

confidence. In short, simulation’s linguistic and non-linguistic benefits, the teacher and

students have derived, were much pervasive throughout the whole study.

269

GENERAL CONCLUSION

Over the past few decades, innovative language teaching has assumed significant place

in second/foreign language instruction. There has been a shift from explicit focus on the

linguistic properties of a language to an emphasis on the production and comprehension of

meaning. This shift has clearly put extra demands on active learning techniques in which

recent research has proved the efficacy of simulation technique which is commonly believed

as the most active learning technique. Thus, the simulation literature has grown solid roots in

the foreign language pedagogy. The realm of reality and flexible interaction are viewed as the

most crucial elements which give practicality, feasibility and viability to this technique in the

foreign language class, particularly in the Oral Expression class. Nevertheless, there was a

weak research effort made to highlight the existence and effectiveness of the simulation

activities in the foreign Oral Expression classes. Thereby, this exploratory work aims at

proving the positive effects simulations yield to the Oral Expression class at the Department

of Letters and the English Language, University of Frères Mentouri, Constantine 1. This

thesis considers the speaking skill and the listening skill together and provides an overview

about the integration of both skills in communicative interactive tasks. It also discusses all the

issues related to the nature of the simulation activities and the technicalities which pertain to

its implementation in the language classroom, and then gives considerable account to how

simulation engenders and strengthens the communication in academic context (Chapter One,

Chapter Two, and Chapter Three). These chapters serve to elicit background information on

which the practical work is designed.

All the information described in the literature review has been clearly demonstrated in

the description of the simulation instruction (Chapter Four). As whatever would be

implemented in the foreign language classroom has to guarantee the approval of the students

270

and teachers, this study investigated the students’ attitudes and opinions (Chapter Five) and

teachers’ views (Chapter Six) about the simulation activities. The students’ questionnaire has

been employed to check the second hypothesis: if the simulation teaching technique is

applied, it would stimulate second year students’ interests and positive attitudes. In the light

of the analysis of students’ questionnaire, the hypothesis has been confirmed. This

confirmation gave credence to the aim stated for this study. Moreover, teachers’ views

support the idea of implementing this technique. In spite of the fact that over the half of

teachers were oriented towards the use of role-play activities over the simulation activities,

most of the teachers realised the positive effects of simulation on students themselves and

classroom environment and thus approved the viability of this technique in the Oral

Expression class. Additionally, although the teachers were not fully familiar with the

technique, they expressed a welcome opinion to implement it.

On the basis of data collected from the pre/post-test and delayed post-test (Chapter

Seven), we have tested the two first hypotheses: when teachers apply simulation technique in

EFL classroom, this would develop students’ listening and speaking proficiency, and if

teachers focus on developing listening and speaking proficiency in Oral Expression class,

students communicative competence would improve. The analysis of the pre-test has proved

the variability of the students speaking and listening levels. Students in both experimental

groups started with weak speaking level and listening proficiency hinges between novice and

intermediate level. The post-test results have revealed a positive change in students speaking

and listening proficiency; however, students could bridge their speaking proficiency gap,

whereas their listening proficiency remained variable and unmatched. We have come to the

conclusion that the first half of the first hypothesis was confirmed, but the second was

partially validated. Indeed, simulation activities have remarkably illustrated the concrete

relationship between comprehensible input and output through the naturalistic interaction they

271

create in the classroom. Experimental group1exhibited stabilised improvement in the delayed

post-test, whereas, experimental group 2 showed slight improvement in the speaking and

listening levels. The analysis signalled the fact that simulation helps students approximate

more natural output which might be produced in real contexts in a long term basis. The

conclusions drawn from the analysis of the data collected throughout the study have grown

clear incidence of the students’ communicative competence growth by equipping them with

more linguistic resources and strategic choices. Besides it embedded pragmatic and

sociolinguistic manipulation of the language.

We highlight then, as far as the simulation activities conformed to the students’ needs

and attitudes as well as teachers’ perspectives on teaching, thereby they are efficient. The

variability of the linguistic and non-linguistic benefits of the simulation made us recommend

to widely applying this technique in Oral Expression class in the long run to enable students

experiment reality in safe environment. To put it another way, students can only interact

naturally and spontaneously when they are immersed in a wider variety of real-life spoken

contexts where they activate their language resources. All the conservative opinions of using

simulations in foreign classrooms are recommended to be discussed in the forthcoming

further research.

272

List of References

Anderson, A., & Lynch, T. (1988). Listening. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Angelini, L. (2014). Qualitative research on simulation and collaborative learning. Journal of

the Comenius Association, (23), 24-27. Retrieved from http://bit.ly/1DAC5Kp

Austin, J. (1962). How to do things with words. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Bachman, L. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Baker, T.L. (1994). Doing social research (2nd

ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Inc.

Baker, L. L., & Gaut, D.A. (2002). Communication (8th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Baker, J & Westrup, H. (2003). Essential speaking skills: A handbook for English

language teachers. London: VSO.

Blank, S. C. (1985). Effectiveness of role playing, case studies, and simulation games in

teaching agricultural economics. Western Journal of Agricultural Economics, 10(1), 55-

62. Retrieved from http://purl.umn.edu/32523

Bonwell, C. C., & Eison, J.A. (1991). Active learning; creating excitement in the classroom.

ASHE-ERIC Higher Education (Report No. 1).Washington, D.C.: The George

Washington University, School of Education and Human Development.

Brickner, D. R., & Etter E. R. (2008). Strategies for promoting active learning in a principle

of accounting course. Academy of Education Leadership Journal, 12(2), 87- 93.

Retrieved from http://www.freepatentsonline.com/article/Academy-Educational-

Leadership-Journal/190795465.html

Brophy, J. (2004). Motivating students to learn (2nd

ed.). London: Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates.

Brown, H. D. (2000). Principles of language learning and teaching. White Plains, NY:

Longman.

Brown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy

(2nd

ed.). White Plains, NY: Longman.

Brown, H. D. (2004). Language assessment: Principles and classroom practices. White

Plains, NY: Pearson Education.

273

Brown, G., & Yule, Y. (1983). Teaching the Spoken Language. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Buck, G. (2001). Assessing listening. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bygate, M. (1987). Speaking. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Canale, M. (1983). From communicative competence to communicative language pedagogy.

In J. Richards, & R. Schmidt (Eds.), Language and Communication. Harlow: Longman.

Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980).Theoretical bases for communicative approaches to second

language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 1-47. Retrieved from

http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/applin/I.1.1

Celce-Murcia, M., Dornyei, Z., & Thurrel, S. (1995). Communicative competence: A

pedagogically motivated model with content specifications. Issues in Applied

Linguistics, 6 (2). Retrieved from http://www.zoltandornyei.co.uk/uploads/1995-celce-

murcia-dornyei-thurrell-ial.pdf

Celce-Murcia, M., Dornyei, Z., & Thurrel, S. (1997). Direct approaches in L2 instruction:

A turning point in communicative language teaching? TESOLQuarterly, 31(1), 141-152.

Retrieved from

https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/ba734f_87143264b12248438377bebb32a8173c.pdf

Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Cohen, L. Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2000). Research methods in education (5th

ed.).

London: Routledge/Falmer.

Crabbe, D. (2007). Learning opportunities: Adding value to tasks. ELT Journal, 61(2), 3-

124. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccm004

Crookall, D. (1984).The use of non-ELT simulations. ELT Journal, 38 (4). 262-264. doi:

https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/38.4.262

Davis, R. S. (1996). Simulations: A tool for testing "virtual reality" in the language

classroom. Curriculum and Evaluation: The Japan Association for Language Teaching,

Tokyo, 313-317. Retrieved from http//:www.Simulations in Language Teaching.htm

Davis, B. G. (2009). Tools for teaching (2nd

ed.). San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons.

274

Dornyei, Z. (2007). Research methodology in applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University

Press.

Ellis, R. (1997). SLA research and language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University

Press.

Field, J. (1998). Skills and strategies: towards a new methodology for listening. ELT Journal

52(2), 114-117. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/52.2.110

Field, J. (2008). Listening in the language Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University.

Finocchiaro, M., & Brumfit C. (1983). The functional notional approach. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Fulcher, G., & Davidson, F. (2007). Language testing and assessment: An advanced

resource book. London: Routledge.

Garcia-Carbonell, A., Andreu-Andres, M. A., & Watts. F. (2014). Simulation and Gaming

as the future’s language of language learning and acquisition of professional

competences. In R. D. Duke & W. Kriz (Eds.).Back to the Future of Gaming (pp. 214-

227).Germany: WB Verlag.

Gebhard, J.G. (1996). Teaching English as a foreign language: A teacher self-development

and methodology guide. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.

Gizir, S., & Simsek, H. (2005). Communication in an academic context. Higher Education,

50 (2), 200. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/25068096

Grice, H.P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and

semantics (pp. 41-58). New York: Academic Press.

Grimshaw, A.D. (2003).Genres, registers, and contexts of discourse. In A.C. Graesser, M. N.

Gernsbacher, & S.R. Godman (Eds.), Handbook of discourse processes. London:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Halliday, M. A. K. (1970). Language structure and language function. In Lyons, J. (ed.). New

Horizons in Linguistics (p.145).Harmonds worth: Penguin.

275

Harmer, J. (2007). The Practice of English Language Teaching (4th ed.). Harlow: Pearson

Education Ltd.

Harmer, J. (2008). How to teach English. London: Person Longman.

Henning, G. (1987). A guide to language testing: development, evaluation,

research. Cambridge, Mass.: Newberry House Publishers.

Herbert, D., & Sturtridge, G. (1979). Simulations. The British Council: ELT Guide-2.

Herron, C., Morris, M., Secules, T., & Curtis L. (1995).A comparison study of the effects

of video-based versus text-based instruction in the foreign language classroom. The

French Review, 68(5), 775. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/397850

Hinkel, Eli. (2006). Current perspectives on teaching the four skills. TESOL Quarterly, 40(1),

109-131.doi: 10.2307/40264513

Hyland, K., & Hamp-Lyons, L. (2002). EAP: issues and directions. Journal of English for

Academic Purposes, 1(1), 1-12. doi: 10.1016/S1475-1585(02)00002-4

Hymes, D. H. (1972).On communicative competence. In J. B. Pride and J. Holmes (eds.),

Sociolinguistics, 275-277. Baltimore: Penguin Books.

Jingyan, C. &Baldauf Jr, R.B. (2011).Can EFL interactive listening be validly assessed?

Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics (Quarterly), 34(4), 33-34.Doi:

10.1515/CJAL.2011.032

Jones, K. (1982). Simulations in language teaching. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University

Press.

Jones, K. (1995). Simulations: A handbook for teachers and trainers (Rev. Ed.). London:

Kogan Page.

Jones, L. (1983). Eight simulations: for upper-intermediate and more advanced students of

English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Jones, L. (2007). The student-centred classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Jordan, R. R. (1997). English for academic purposes: A guide and resource book for

teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Jordan, A., Carlile, O., & Stack, A. (2008).Approaches to learning: A guide for teachers.

England: Open University Press.

276

Kanner, M. D. (2007). War and peace: Simulating security decision making in the classroom.

Political Science & Politics,40, 795-800. doi:10.1017/s1049096507071259

Kerr, J.Y.K. (1977). Games and simulations in English language teaching. ELT Document,

77(1). London: The British Council. Retrieved from

https://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/sites/teacheng/files/F044%20ELT-

24%20Games%2C%20Simulations%20and%20Role-playing_v3.PDF

Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning. Englewood

Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and practices in second language acquisition. Oxford:

Pergamon.

Krashen, S. D. (1985). The input hypothesis: issues and implications. London: Longman.

Kumaravadivelu, B. (2006). TESOL methods: changing tracks, challenging trends. TESOL

Quarterly, 40(1), 61.doi: 10.2307/40264511

Ladousse, G. P. (1987). Role play. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Larsen-Freeman, Diane. (2000). Techniques and principles in language teaching (2nd

ed.).

Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Lee, J. F. (2000). Tasks and communicating in language classrooms. Boston: McGraw Hill.

Little, W., Fowler, H. W., Coulson, J., In Onions, C. T., & Friedrichsen, G. W. S. (1973).

The shorter Oxford English dictionary (3rd

rev. Ed., Vol. 1). Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Littlejohn, A. (1990).Testing: The use of simulation/games as a language testing device. In

D. Crookall & R. L. Oxford (Eds.), Simulation, gaming and language learning (pp.

125-133). New York: Newbury House.

Littlewood, W. (1981). Communicative language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In

W.C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition. New

York: Academic Press.

277

Loumpourdi, L. (2005). Developing from PPP to TBL: A Focused Grammar Task. In C.

Edwards and J. Willis (Eds.), Teachers Exploring Tasks in English Language Teaching.

New York, N.Y.: Palgrave Macmillan.

Luoma, S. (2004). Assessing speaking. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lynch, Tony. (1996). Communication in the language classroom. Oxford: Oxford University

Press.

Lynch, Tony. (2009). Teaching second language listening. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ma, Tsinghong. (2009). On communicative language teaching-theoretical foundation and

principles. Asian Social Science, 5(4), 40. Retrieved from

http://www.ccsenet.org/journal.html

Mack, P. (2009). Understanding simulation-based learning. Singapore : Life Support

Training Centre.

Mackey, A., & Gass, S.M. (2005). Second language research: Methodology and design.

USA: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Madsa, T. (2012).Motivating Students’ Speaking Skill through Simulation in English for

Specific Purposes, International conference, Rattaphum College, 2012.Rajamangala

University of Technology Srivijaya, Songkhla, Thailand. Retrieved from

http://marifa.hct.ac.ae/.../Using Creative-Strategies-to-Promote-Students-Speak

Mañeru, G., Altarejos, M., & Rodríguez-Sedano, A. (2011). Learning by simulation - an

educational experience in the simulation center of the school of medicine of the

University of Navarra. Procedia-Social and Behavioural Sciences, (28), 253-285.

Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com

McCarthy, M. (1998). Spoken language and applied linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Merrill, H.S. (2005). Case Study, Problem-Based Learning and Simulation in Online

Graduate Courses. 19th Annual Conference on Distance teaching and Learning.The

Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System. Retrieved from

http://www.uwex.edu/disted/conference/Resource_library/proceedings/03_04.pdf

Murphey, T., & Kenny, T. (1996). Learner self-evaluated videoing (LSEV). On

JALT 95: Proceedings of the JALT 1995 Conference (pp. 198-202). Retrieved from

http//:www.Simulations in Language Teaching.htm

278

Nunan, D. (1989). Designing tasks for communicative classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

O’Malley, J. M., & Valdez Pierce, L. (1996).Authentic assessment for English language

learners: Practical approaches for teachers. London: Longman.

Panitz, T. (1996). A definition of collaborative vs. cooperative learning. Deliberations, 15.

Retrieved from http://www.londonmet.ac.uk/deliberations/collaborative-learning/panitz-

Polit, D.F., Beck, C.T., & Hungler, B. P. (2001). Essentials of nursing research: Methods,

appraisal, and utilization (5th

ed.). Philadelphia: Lippincott.

Poupore, G. (2005).Quality interaction and types of negotiation in problem-solving and

jigsaw tasks. In E. C. Edwards & J. Willis (Eds.), Teachers Exploring Tasks in English

Language Teaching. New York, N.Y.: Palgrave Macmillan.

Rai, Urmila. (2010). English language communication skills. Mumbai: Himalaya publishing

house.

Richards, J.C. (1983). Listening comprehension: Approach, design, procedure. TESOL

Quarterly, 17 (2), 219–240. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3586651

Richards, J.C., & Rodgers, T. (1986). Approaches and methods in language teaching.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Richards, J. C. (2006). Communicative language teaching today. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Richards, J. C. (2008). Teaching listening and speaking: From theory to practice.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Sadow, S. A. (1987). Speaking and listening: Imaginative activities for the language class. In

W. M. Rivers (Ed.), Interactive Language Teaching (pp. 33-34). Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Savignon, S. J. (1991). Communicative language teaching: State of the art. TESOL

Quarterly, 25(2), 263. Retrieved from

http://www.jstor.org.www.sndl1.arn.dz/stable/3587463

Schober, M. F., & Brennan, S.E. (2003). Processes of interactive spoken discourse: The role

of the partner. In A.C. Graesser, M. N. Gernsbacher, & S.R. Godman (Eds.), Handbook

of discourse processes. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Seedhouse, P. (1999).Task-based interaction. ELT Journal, 53(3), 149-151. Retrieved from

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download? doi=10.1.1...pdf

279

Sherman, J. (2003). Using authentic video in the language classroom. Cambridge:

Cambridge UP.

Silvia, C. (2009).The Impact of simulations on higher-level learning. Journal of Public

Affairs Education, 18(2), 397–422. Retrieved from

www.naspaa.org/JPAEMessenger/Article/VOL18-2/10_silva.pdf

Simon, M. K. (2011). Dissertation and scholarly research: Recipes for success. Seattle, WA:

Dissertation Success, LLC. Retrieved from http://dissertationrecipes.com

Singh, K. Y. (2006). Fundamental of research methodology and statistics. New Delhi: New

Age International Publishers.

Skehan, P. (1998). A Cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University

Press.

Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and

comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in

Second Language Acquisition. New York: Newbury House.

Thornbury, S., & Slade, D. (2006).Conversation from description to pedagogy. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Tomlinson, B., & Masuhara, H. (2000).Using simulations on materials development

courses. Simulation & Gaming, 31 (2), 153. doi: 10.1177/104687810003100202

Tompkins, K. P. (1998). Role Playing/Simulation. The Internet TESL Journal, 4(8).

Retrieved from http//www.Tompkins - Role Playing-Simulation (I-TESL-J).htm

Underhill, N. (1987). Testing spoken language: a hand book of oral testing techniques.

Cambridge: Cambridge University press.

Ur, P. (1984). Teaching listening comprehension. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ur, P. (1996). A course in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Vandergrift, L. (1997).The Cinderella of Communication Strategies: Reception Strategies in

Interactive Listening. The Modern Language Journal, 81(4), 494-496. Retrieved from

http://www.jstor.org/stable/328892

Vandergrift, L. (1999). Facilitating second language listening comprehension: acquiring

successful strategies. ELT Journal, 53(3). 171-172. Retrieved from

http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/

280

Vandrgrift, L. (2004). Listening to learn or learning to listen? Annual Review of Applied

Linguistics, 24. doi:10.1017/S0267190504000017

Vandergrift, L. (2007). Recent developments in second and foreign language listening

comprehension research. Language Teaching, 40. 191.

doi:10.1017/S0261444807004338

Weir, C. J. (2005). Language testing and validation: An evidence-based approach. Palgrave

Macmillan: Great Britain.

Widdowson, H. G. (1978). Teaching language as communication. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Widdowson, H. G. (1989). Knowledge of language and ability for use. Applied Linguistics,

10 (2), 128–137.doi: 10.1093/applin/10.2.128

Willis, D., &Willis, J. (2007). Doing task-based teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Xiaoxian, G., & Yan, J. (2010). Interactive listening: Construct definition and

operationalization in tests of English as a foreign language.Chinese Journal of Applied

Linguistics, 33(6), 22-27. Retrieved from http://www.celea.org.cn/teic/94/2.pdf

Yu, R. (2008). Interaction in EFL classes. Asian Social Science, 4 (4), 48-50. Retrieved from

http://www. Ccsenet.org/ journal.html

APPENDICES

Appendix I: The Pilot Pre-questionnaire

Appendix II: The Pilot Post-questionnaire

Appendix III: EFL Students’ Pre-questionnaire

Appendix IV: EFL Students’ Post-questionnaire

Appendix V: Teachers’ Questionnaire

Appendix VI: Experimental Groups’ Pre-test Framework of Speaking

Appendix VII: Experimental Groups’ Post-test Framework of Speaking

Appendix VIII: Experimental Groups’ Delayed Post-test Framework of Speaking

Appendix IX: Interactional Strategy Checklist (Vandergrift, 1997)

Appendix X: Analytic Speaking Rubric

Appendix XI: Simulation Lesson Plans

Appendix XII: Students’ Pre/Post-test and Delayed Post-test Video Recordings DVD

Appendix XIII: Simulation Video Recordings DVD

Appendix XIV: Transcripts of the Pre-test Performances (Experimental group 1 and

Experimental group 2)

Appendix XV: Transcripts of the Post-test Performances (Experimental group 1 and

Experimental group 2)

Appendix XVI: Transcripts of the Delayed post-test Performances (Experimental group 1

and Experimental group 2)

APPENDIX I:

The pilot Pre-Questionnaire

Dear students

This questionnaire is a part of a research on English language teaching methodologies and

techniques used by teachers at the department of letters and English language. It aims at

collecting data about the current level of students’ language proficiency and proves the

efficacy of simulation-based instruction in enhancing students’ speaking and listening

proficiency.

I would be thankful if you complete this questionnaire. Try to provide sincere answers; I am

waiting for credible and confidential responses. Your contribution will be of a great

importance for the completion of this research.

I really appreciate your cooperation.

Personal profile

24. Age:…… sex: male female

Academic Profile

25. Field of study: …………………..

26. Degree obtained: License Master Ph. D.

English Education

1. How many years did you study English? ……

2. Do you consider English: important unimportant optional necessary

3. For what reason/s do you think you need to learn English?

Future job

Further studies

Going abroad

Writing e-mail or any academic paper

Communicating with foreigners via social media (facebook, twitter, skype, etc.)

Other reasons (specify please)

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………

Classroom Focus/Materials/Participation

1. At what frequency the following language skills were taught last year?

Language skill Always Sometimes Never

Reading

Listening

Writing

Speaking

2. According to you, which language skill/s that should have more focus?

…………………………………………………………………………………………………...

3. What are the kinds of materials were used in the English class last year?

Textbook Handouts Videos Audio recordings

4. Did the English class help you to improve your English? Yes No

If No, have you ever felt the need for a better learning in English?

Yes No

5. Did you have any chance to speak in English in the classroom in the year?

Yes No

If yes can you give a percentage % of the speaking opportunities you had, what would

it be? (0% to 20% rarely, 20% to 50% sometimes, 50% to70% often, and 70% to 90%

often) …………………….

6. What kind of speaking activities were used in English class last year?

Describing pictures

Oral presentation of a research

Listening to audio or video materials and then discuss it with partner/s

Playing a game like solving puzzles orally

Never have speaking activities

If you had other activities, specify them please.

………………………………………………………………………………………………..

7. What kind of listening material(s) you had in the English class last year?

Listening to the teacher

Listening to audio materials

Watching videos

8. Were these/this material(s) helpful in improving your Listening comprehension?

Yes No

9. How much did you participate orally in English class?

Always

Often

Rarely

Never

English Speaking and Listening Proficiency

10. Are you able to speak English confidently?

Yes No

11. If you have difficulties in speaking, what are the aspects that prevent you from speaking

(Classify them, giving 1for the most difficult, 2 to the less difficult and 3 to the least

difficult and so on)

12. According to you, being able to speak and listen is:

Very important

Unimportant

Slightly needed

13. Do you think you need speaking reinforcement courses?

Yes No

14. What kind of activities would you like to have in order to reinforce your speaking skill?

Order the following activities from 1 the most favorable to 7 the least desired)

Speaking Aspect Classification

Fluency

Pronunciation

Fear of mistakes

Inability to express clear ideas

Grammar

Lack of vocabulary

Speaking Activity

Classification

Oral interview

Picture/story description

Information gap (one person has information and his

partner does not, the information should be described in

details via physical objects, and a linguistic command of

colors, shape, sizes, directions and sequences)

Story/text Retelling

Improvisation/Role play/simulation (playing out

scenarios)

Oral reports

Debates

15. How can you assess your ability in listening to English (tick off the right answer)

Very good

Good

Average

Weak

Very weak

16. Which aspect/s constitute(s) the problem for you in listening?

Speed of speech

The accent

The vocabulary used in the speech

Ungrammatical sentences (informal speech)

17. Do you like watching videos and listening to recordings in the classroom to help you boost

your listening proficiency?

Yes No

18. Inside the classroom, do you like to do activities:

Individually

In pairs

In small group

In large group

19. If you have a chance to go abroad in a non-Arabic country can you communicate in English

(as the international language) with the people of that country (e.g., when ask for direction,

book a room in hotel, make a phone call, present a paper, make an academic discussion)?

Yes No

20. Do you like courses that prepare you for such situations?

Yes No

APPENDIX II:

The Pilot Post-questionnaire

Dear students

This questionnaire is a part of a research on English language teaching techniques and

tasks used by teachers at the department of letters and English language to teach Oral

Expression module. It aims at collecting data about the current level of students’ language

proficiency and proves the efficacy of Role play activities in enhancing students’ speaking

and listening proficiency.

I would be thankful if you complete this questionnaire. Try to provide sincere answers; I am

waiting for credible and confidential responses. Your contribution will be of a great

importance for the completion of this research.

I really appreciate your cooperation.

Learners’ attitudes/participation

1. Did the Oral Expression class in this semester help you to improve your speaking skill?

Yes No

If No, do you feel the need for a better learning in English?

Yes No

2. Do you feel you had more chance to speak in English in the classroom in this semester,

because you did role play activities?

Yes No

3. How much did you participate orally in English class in this semester?

Always

Often

Rarely

Never

4. Did you have activities of the same kind in the past?

Yes No

1. You have dealt with many oral activities during the years you have been learning English. In

this semester, you dealt with role play activities. Would you order the following activities

according to how much they developed your speaking and listening skills? (Order the

following activities from 1 the most effective to 7 the least efficient)

Speaking Activity

Classification

Oral interview

Picture/story description

Information gap (one person has information and his partner

does not, the information should be described in details via

physical objects, and a linguistic command of colors, shape,

sizes, directions and sequences)

Story/text Retelling

Improvisation/Role play/simulation (playing out scenarios)

Oral reports

Debates

5. Did you enjoy the role play activities?

Very much

Much

Not really

Not at all

6. Do you think that these activities are useful?

Very useful

Useful

Useless

Very useless

7. How can judge the role play activities?

Highly interactive

Interactive

Not interactive at all

English Speaking and Listening Proficiency

8. How is your speaking ability now as a result of role play activities?

Very good

Good

Average

Never improved

9. Please rate the following aspects of speaking proficiency according to how much role play

activities were helpful in improving them

1. Very helpful 2. Somewhat helpful 3. Not at all helpful

10. Please choose which of the following claims is true for you? (tick off the right column)

Claim True False

My self- confidence increased because I worked in

pairs and small group during role play activities.

I feel less embarrassed and hesitant when I try to

speak in English in front of the class.

I am not afraid of making mistakes in front of the

class.

If I do not understand something in English, I can

ask the other person to slow down or say it again.

I am able to rephrase properly any point if there is a

misunderstanding.

I can interact freely with others in English.

I like the interaction with my classmates during

role play activities.

Speaking Aspect 1. Very helpful 2. Somewhat helpful 3. Not at all helpful

Fluency

Pronunciation

Fear of mistakes

express clear ideas

Grammar

Vocabulary

I can properly use the correct register (formal vs;

informal).

I can use the spoken grammar correctly (ellipsis,

repetition, reduced forms…etc.)

My linguistic skills are developed as a result of role

play activities.

Because of interaction during role play activities,

my speaking mistakes are reduced.

11. What kind of listening material(s) you had in the Oral Expression class in this semester?

Listening to the teacher

Listening to audio materials

Watching videos

12. According to you, which of the forgoing materials is helpful in improving your Listening

comprehension?

……………………………………………………………………………………….

13. How can you assess your ability in listening to English after you had role play activities?

(tick off the right answer)

Very good

Good

Average

Weak

Very weak

14. Which aspect/s of spoken language you feel you became acquainted with in listening?

Speed of speech

The accent

The vocabulary used in the speech

Understanding spoken grammar (the use ellipsis, reduced forms

Understanding different registers (formal vs. informal)

15. Inside the classroom, did you do role play activities?

Individually

In pairs

In small group

In large group

Which of the performance patterns mentioned in question 15 do you prefer?

…………………………………………………………………………………………….

16. How do you prefer to be corrected?

A.

By your teacher

By yourself

By your classmates

B.

During the activity

After the activity

17. If you have a chance to go abroad in a non-Arabic country can you communicate in

English (as the international language) with the people of that country (e.g., when asking

for direction, booking a room in hotel, making a phone call, presenting a paper, and make

an academic discussion)?

Yes No

18. Do you feel that role play activities prepared you for such situations? In other words, do

you feel that role play activities are adequately preparing you to engage in casual

spontaneous conversation and formal speech with native or non-native speakers?

Yes No

Why or Why not?

………………………………………………………………………………………………….

……………………………………………………………………………

19. What would you change in the role play activities to make them more effective for learning

to speak and listen?

……………………………………………………………………………………………….

………………………………………………………………………………………………..

I really appreciate your contribution.

APPENDIX III:

EFL Students’ Pre-questionnaire

Dear students

This questionnaire is a part of a research on English language teaching methodologies and

techniques used by teachers at the department of letters and English language. It aims at

collecting data about the perceived level of students’ language proficiency and the efficacy of

simulation-based instruction in enhancing students’ speaking and listening proficiency.

I would be thankful if you complete this questionnaire. Please tick () or complete the

answers where necessary. Your answers will be treated anonymously. I am waiting for

credible and confidential responses. Your contribution will be of a great importance for the

completion of this research.

I really appreciate your cooperation.

Section One: Personal profile

1. Age:…… sex: male female

2. How long have you been study English? ……

Section Two: English Education

3. Do you consider English: important unimportant optional necessary

4. For what reason/s do you think you need to learn English?

a. Future job

b. Further studies

c. Going abroad

d. Writing e-mail or any academic paper

e. Communicating with foreigners via social media (facebook, twitter, skype, etc.)

f. Tourism (travelling)

Other reasons (specify please……………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………

Section Three: Classroom Focus/Materials/Participation

5. At what frequency the following language skills were taught last year?

Language Skill Always Sometimes Never

Reading

Listening

Writing

Speaking

6. According to you, which language skill/s that should have more focus?

………………………………………………………………………………………………

7. What kinds of materials were used in the Oral Expression class last year?

Textbook Handouts Videos Audio recordings

8. Did the Oral Expression module help you to improve your English?

Yes No

9. Did you have any chance to speak in English in the classroom last year?

Yes No

10. How often did you participate orally in English class?

Always

Often

Rarely

Never

11. What kind of speaking activities did you have in the Oral Expression module last year?

a. Commenting pictures

b. Retelling a story

c. Presenting a research

d. Listening to audio or video materials and then discussing them with partner/s

e. Playing games

If you had other activities, specify them please.

………………………………………………………………………………………………..

12. What kind of listening material(s) did you mainly have in the Oral Expression class last

year?

a. Listening to the teacher

b. Listening to audio materials

c. Watching videos

13. Were these/this material(s) helpful in improving your listening comprehension?

Yes No

Section Four: English Speaking and Listening Proficiency

14. According to you, being able to speak and listen is:

Very important

Slightly important

Unimportant

15. Tick the best answer, according to you, for each statement.

Statement of Ability I can I cannot

a. Be interviewed in English.

b. Express opinion to native speakers in English.

c. Solve misunderstanding problems.

d. Make enquiries about anything in English.

e. Engage in spontaneous authentic conversation in

English with native speakers.

f. Ask for clarification in English.

g. Complain in English.

h. Ask for and give directions.

i. Present an academic paper in English.

j. Make decision in English.

k. Make suggestions.

l. Agree and disagree in English.

m. Persuade others in English.

n. Greet others and introduce yourself in formal

situations.

16. If you have difficulties in speaking, what are the aspects that prevent you from speaking

(Classify them according to the scale (1 to 5) of difficulty).

17. Do you think you need speaking reinforcement courses?

Yes No

18. What kind of activities would you like to have in order to reinforce your speaking skill?

(Order the following activities from 1 the least favourable to 5 the most desired)

Speaking Activity

Students’ Desire

Least

favourable

Slightly

favourable

Averagely

favourable

Desired Most

desired

a. Oral interview

b. Picture description

c. Information gap (one

person has

information and his

partner does not, the

information should be

described in details

via physical objects,

and a linguistic

command of colours,

Speaking Aspect

Difficulty

Not

difficult

Slightly

difficult

Averagely

difficult

Difficult Very

difficult

a. Fluency

b. Pronunciation

c. Fear of making mistakes

d. Inability to express clear

ideas

e. Grammar

f. Lack of vocabulary

g. Class atmosphere (group

size and noise)

h. Time shortage

Any other aspect?

…………………………

….

shape, sizes,

directions and

sequences)

d. Story/text Retelling

e. Improvisation/Role

play/simulation

(playing out

scenarios)

f. Oral reports

g. Debates

h. Discussion

i. Presentation of a

given topic

Others please; specify

………………………

……..

19. How can you assess your ability in listening to English spoken language? (tick off () the

right answer)

Very good

Good

Average

Weak

Very weak

20. Do you like watching videos and listening to audio recordings in the classroom to help you

boost your listening proficiency?

Yes No

21. Inside the classroom, do you like to do activities:

Individually

In pairs

In small group

In large group

22. In real-life situations, different problems may occur which need an immediate decision

making to solve them. Sometimes problem solving or decision making may need

interaction with others. Are you able to interact with others in English to solve real-life

problems (e.g., disagreement in a panel) or make decisions (e.g., decide on the best way to

improve the speaking skill with classmates)?

Yes No

23. Do you like to promote your communicative efficiency when solving problems, making

decisions, communicating and interacting with others in English?

Yes No

I really appreciate your contribution.

APPENDIX IV:

EFL Students’ Post-questionnaire

Dear students

This questionnaire is a part of a research on English language teaching methodologies

and techniques used by teachers at the department of letters and English language. It aims at

collecting data about the current level of students’ language proficiency and proves the

efficacy of simulation-based instruction in enhancing students’ speaking and listening

proficiency.

I would be thankful if you complete this questionnaire. Please tick () or complete the

answers where necessary. Your answers will be treated anonymously. I am waiting for

credible and confidential responses. Your contribution will be of a great importance for the

completion of this research.

I really appreciate your cooperation.

Section One: Learners’ attitudes/participation

1. Did the Oral Expression class in the last semester help you to improve your speaking skill?

Yes No

2. Do you feel you had more chance to speak in the classroom during the simulations you had

in the last semester, more than last year?

Yes No

3. How often did you participate orally in English class in this semester?

Always

Often

Rarely

Never

4. Did you have simulation activities last year?

Yes No

5. How can you judge the simulation activities you had in the last semester?

Highly interactive

Interactive

Not interactive at all

6. What is your opinion about these activities? Are they:

Very useful

Useful

Useless

Very useless

7. How much did you enjoy the simulation activities?

Very much

Much

Not really

Not at all

8. Please choose which of the following claims is true or false for you? (tick off the right

column)

Claim True False

a. My self- confidence increased because I

worked in pairs and small group during

simulation activities.

b. I feel less embarrassed, nervous and hesitant

when I try to speak in English in front of the

class.

c. I am not afraid of making mistakes in front

of the class.

d. I feel motivated after simulation activities.

e. Because of interaction during simulation

activities, my speaking mistakes are

reduced.

f. My problem solving skills are developed

after simulation activities.

g. I liked the interaction with my classmates in

different contexts during simulation

activities.

h. I am able to use different communication

skills like journalism, making speech,

chairmanship, analysis, and oratory.

i. I am able to listen and understand whoever

speaks in English.

j. I can use the spoken grammar correctly

(ellipsis, repetition, reduced forms…etc.).

k. I can properly use the correct register

(formal vs; informal).

Section Two: English Speaking and Listening Proficiency

9. Tick the best answer according to you for each statement.

Statement of ability I can I cannot

a. Be interviewed in English.

b. Express opinion to native speakers in English.

c. Solve misunderstanding problems.

d. Make enquiries about anything in English.

e. Engage in spontaneous authentic conversation

in English with native speakers.

f. Ask for clarification in English.

g. Complain in English.

h. Ask for and give directions.

i. Present an academic paper in English.

j. Make decision in English.

k. Make suggestions.

l. Agree and disagree in English.

m. Persuade others in English.

n. Greet others and introduce yourself in formal

situations.

10. You have dealt with many oral activities during the years you have been learning English.

What kind of activities would you like to have in order to reinforce your speaking and

listening skills? (Order the following activities from 1 the least favourable to 5 the most

desired)

Speaking Activity

Students’ Desire

Least

favourable

Slightly

favourable

Averagely

favourable

Desired Most

desired

a. Oral interview

b. Picture description

c. Information gap (one person

has information and his partner

does not, the information

should be described in details

via physical objects, and a

linguistic command of colors,

shape, sizes, directions and

sequences)

d. Story/text Retelling

e. Improvisation/Role

play/simulation (playing out

scenarios)

f. Oral reports

g. Debates

h. Discussion

i. Presentation of a given topic

Others please; specify

……………………………..

11. How can you assess your ability to speak in English after having the simulation activities?

Very good

Good

Average

Weak

Very weak

12. What are the speaking difficulties you think simulation activities helped you to improve?

(Classify them according to the scale (1 to 5) of improvement).

Speaking Aspect

Difficulty

Not

improved

Slightly

improved

Averagely

improved

Improved Well

improved

a. Fluency

b. Pronunciation

c. Fear of making

mistakes

13. How can you assess your ability in listening to English after having the simulation

activities? (tick off the right answer)

Very good

Good

Average

Weak

Very weak

14. Did you like watching videos and listening to audio recordings (before the simulation) in the

classroom in the last semester?

Yes No

15. Were these/this material(s) helpful in making you perform better in the simulation?

Yes No

16. Did you like watching your performance in the simulation and be corrected by yourself and

your classmates besides your teacher?

Yes No

17. Do you feel that simulation activities prepared you for real life communication? In other

words, do you feel that simulation activities adequately prepared you to solving problems,

making decision, communicating, interacting and engaging in casual spontaneous

conversation and formal speech with native or non-native speakers in the outside world?

Yes No

Why or Why not?

………………………………………………………………………………………………….

……………………………………………………………………………

d. Inability to express

clear ideas

e. Grammar

f. Lack of vocabulary

g. Class atmosphere

(group size and noise)

h. Time shortage

Any other aspect?

…………………………….

18. What would you change in the simulation activities to make them more effective for

learning to speak and listen?

……………………………………………………………………………………………….

………………………………………………………………………………………………..

I really appreciate your contribution.

APPENDIX V:

EFL Teachers’ Questionnaire

Dear teachers,

This Questionnaire is part of a study being conducted to explore the efficacy of simulation

activities in enhancing the EFL students’ speaking and listening proficiency. It aims at

collecting information about the usability and the pedagogical effectiveness of simulation

activities in oral expression, particularly in second year classrooms. It also seeks to explore

the teachers’ attitudes towards implementing the simulation-based instruction in order to

improve students’ oral skills and stimulate their positive attitudes and interest. The study

relies on your invaluable feedback which will contribute significantly to the development of

this research. Your responses will be kept anonymous and confidential.

Thank you in advance for your collaboration.

Miss Karima CHERGUI

Department of Letters and the English Language, Faculty of Letters and Languages

University of Mentouri, Constantine 1

Section One: General information

21. What is the degree you hold?

d. Master

e. Magister

f. Ph.D.

22. For how many years have you been teaching Oral Expression to second year students?

……………..years

Section Two: Oral Expression Teaching

23. Is/was there any provision of teaching materials for Oral Expression instruction?

b- Yes b- No

a- If Yes, what were they?

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………

b- If no, how do/did you design your Oral Expression lessons?

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………

24. In typical Oral Expression sessions per year, what percentage of your time in class

with students do/did you devote to the following skills?

Speaking …………..%

Listening …………..%

25. How often do/did your students participate in Oral Expression classes?

Always Often Sometimes Rarely

Section Three: Teacher Methodology

26. What kind of language activities do/did you use to teach the oral/aural skills to second

year students?

1………………………………… 2……………………………………

3…………………………………… 4……………………………………

5……………………………………….

27. When you have oral activities with the students, do/did you use video as a

supplementing tool for teaching?

a- Yes b- No

28. Do/did you regularly teach listening comprehension in laboratories?

a- Yes b- No

If no, why?

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………

29. When do/did you give feedback to students making oral mistakes in the classroom?

□ Directly, e.g. ‘feedback when the error is made, in front of the whole class’.

□ Indirectly, e.g. ‘feedback later on to that single student’.

□ Indirectly in a full class activity.

□ Not at all.

Section Four: Students Problems in Oral Expression

30. According to your experience, how would you describe the actual level of your

students in speaking?

Excellent Good Average Poor

31. According to your experience, how would you describe the actual level of your

students in listening?

Excellent Good Average Poor

32. What are the main difficulties your students suffer from in speaking?

Accuracy Fluency Interacting with others

Solving communication breakdowns Self-confidence (shyness)

Lack of vocabulary

Others……………………………………………………………………………………….

33. What are the main difficulties your students suffer from in listening?

Accent Informal speech Long listening

Speed of the speech Authentic language

Others……………………………………………………………………………………………

Section Five: Teachers attitudes towards Simulation activities

34. Do you use or have you used simulation activities in Oral Expression classroom before?

a- Yes b- No

35. Would you like to use role-play or simulation activities in Oral Expression classroom, or

both?

Role-play Simulation activities Both

Specify why?

………………………………………………………………………………………….

……………………………………………………………………………….

36. How effective do you think simulation can help your students develop their speaking

skills?

Very effective Effective Slightly effective

Ineffective

37. How effective do you think simulation can help your students develop their listening

skills?

Very effective Effective Slightly effective

Ineffective

38. What is your opinion about the following statements?

A. Strongly B. Agree C. Neither agree D. disagree E. strongly

agree nor disagree disagree

Statements A B C D E

i. Second year students should be actively engaged in Oral

Expression class through the use of active learning

techniques.

j. Second year students should be provided with activities that

facilitate their development to be innovative and creative

thinkers.

k. Second year students should develop their interactive

learning style.

l. Second year students should know how to use language to

achieve Functional meaning.

m. Second year students should be able to reflect their

comprehension of the theoretical concepts in

communication.

n. Simulation activities should be implemented in the second

year Oral Expression syllabus.

o. Simulation activities should be implemented to improve

EFL students speaking proficiency?

p. Simulation activities should be implemented to improve

EFL students listening proficiency?

19.Again, what is your opinion about the following statements?

A. Strongly B. Agree C. Neither agree D. disagree E. strongly

agree nor disagree disagree

Statements A B C D E

s. Students’ oral skills are improved when they are engaged in

enjoyable and exciting experience in the classroom.

t. Students’ communication skills would be improved when they

feel responsible for solving problems and making decisions

during the communication.

u. Students can better develop their speaking and listening skills

through cooperative work in the classroom.

v. Students’ listening skills are better developed through interactive

activities.

w. Functional language like agreeing, clarifying, expressing

misunderstanding, requesting, etc. is better taught when students

are engaged in complex social processes.

x. Students speaking skills are best developed through immersing

students in reasonable representation of a real environment.

y. Students’ listening skills will improve when students are able to

solve understanding problems in communicative realistic

environment.

z. The true assessment of students speaking proficiency should

focus on their ability to convey authentic purposes in real-life

interactive situations.

aa. Simulations foster an increase in the levels of student

preparation and participation.

bb. Simulations help develop students’ knowledge retention.

cc. Simulations allow good deal of listening and understanding of

how the other people are feeling and a good knowledge of how

linguistically to take turns or allow others to do so.

dd. Simulations enhance the use of a number of common lexis,

especially to perform language functions such agreeing,

disagreeing, clarifying, expressing misunderstanding, etc.

ee. Simulations allow students to use different communication skills

like journalism, making speech, analysis, oratory, etc.

ff. Students’ communication would be improved when their failure

is as desirable as success.

gg. Students’ fear of mistakes will be reduced due to simulation

activities.

hh. Simulation activities allow self-assessment and peer feedback.

ii. Simulations raise students’ self-confidence and motivation.

jj. Simulations provide invisibility to the teacher to monitor the

progress of the students.

Section Six: Further Suggestions

20. Please, add any further suggestions or comments (use additional page if necessary.)

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

APPENDIX VI:

Experimental Groups’ Pre-test Framework of Speaking

Candidate’s Task Sheet

In recent years, many people become more addicted to social networking since its emergence

in 2004-2005. To what degree social networking affected people’s behaviour, language,

privacy…etc.

Consider the following quotes; people have different views about social media. What is

your stance about using social media? Think about other reasons that make you

approve or disapprove social networking.

“The PC has improved the world in just about every area you can think of. Amazing

developments in communications, collaboration and efficiencies. New kinds of

entertainment and social media. Access to information and the ability to give a voice

people who would never have been heard.” (Bill Gates)

“Social media is an amazing tool, but it's really the face-to-face interaction that makes a

long-term impact.” (Felicia Day)

Discuss the impact of social media in your life and other’s life with your partner.

Bill Gates: an American businessman, one of the founders of Microsoft.

Felicia Day: an American actress, comedian, and writer.

APPENDIX VII:

Experimental Groups’ Post-test Framework of Speaking

Candidate’s Task Sheet

Some people think that if they only have more money, all their problems will be solved.

However, what remains unclear so far is the place of money in opposition to family, truth,

humanity, environment, and health.

Consider the following quotes; people have different views about the value of money.

What is your stance about money in your life? Think about other reasons that make

you approve or disapprove the importance of money in opposition to comfort and

happy life.

Consider the following statements:

“Money has never made man happy, nor will it, there is nothing in its nature to

produce happiness. The more of it one has the more one wants”. Benjamin Franklin

“When I was young I thought that money was the most important thing in life; now

that I am old I know that it is”.Oscar Wilde

Discuss the value and role of money in making people happy. Are with or against the

saying that money is more important than happiness because it can buy happiness?

Benjamin Franklin:one of the Founding Fathers of the United States. Franklin was a leading

author, printer, political theorist, politician, freemason, postmaster, scientist, inventor, civic

activist, statesman, and diplomat. An American businessman.

Oscar Wilde:an Irish playwright, novelist, essayist, and poet.

APPENDIX VIII:

Experimental Groups’ Delayed Post-test Framework of Speaking

Candidate’s Task Sheet

Of all of the new jobs now being created and the huge demand over well-paid jobs, a heated

debate about whether or not having a degree would guarantee having a well-paid job?takes

place. To what extent attaining a good well-paid job only by virtue of university qualification

is true.

Consider the following opinions; people have different views about the necessity of

college degree to get a good job. What is your stance about whether having a degree

does or does not guarantee a job.

Some people believe in the guarantee university degree give to people to have well paid job,

arguing that it's a sign that the worker is serious about the job, knows how to learn, and can

achieve goals. Besides, employers often see worker with college degree as more motivated,

able to learn tasks more quickly, better able to meet deadlines, better at communicating and

problem-solving.

Whereas, some other people believe that a degree doesn't necessarily guarantee a job. They

claim that if people work hard enough they can have a decent job, make a good amount of

money, and be successful without having gone to college.

Discuss your own opinion about the value of university qualification to get well-paid

job, which stance you take

APPENDIX IX:

Interactional Strategy Checklist (Vandergrift, 1997)

Strategy Strategy Count (tokens) Interesting examples

Global Reprise

Specific Reprise

Hypothesis Testing

Forward Inference

Kinesics lean forward?

cocked head?

glazed eyes? hands?

eyebrows furrowed?

confused look?

other?

Uptakes, Continuation

Signals

nods?

verbal (yes)?

paralinguistics (mmm) ?

Faking expression/gestureused?

APPENDIX X:

Analytic Speaking Rubric (Weir 1993)

Fluency

4. Generally natural delivery, only occasional halting when searching for

appropriateWords/expressions.

3. The student hesitates and repeats himself at times but can generally maintain aflow of

speech, although s/he may need an occasional prompt.

2. Speech is slow and hesitant. Maintains speech in a passive manner and needs regular

prompts.

1. The student speaks so little that no ‘fluent’ speech can be said to occur.

Pronunciation

4. Occasional errors of pronunciation a few inconsistencies of rhythm, intonation and

pronunciation but comprehension is not impeded.

3. Rhythm, intonation and pronunciation require more careful listening; some errors of

pronunciation which may occasionally lead to incomprehension.

2. Comprehension suffers due to frequent errors in rhythm, intonation and pronunciation.

1. Words are unintelligible.

Vocabulary

4. Effective use of vocabulary for the task with few inappropriacies.

3. For the most part, effective use of vocabulary for the task with some examples of

inappropriacy.

2. Limited use of vocabulary with frequent inappropriacies.

1. Inappropriate and inadequate vocabulary.

Grammatical accuracy

4. Very few grammatical errors evident.

3. Some errors in use of sentence structures and grammatical forms but these do not interfere

with comprehension.

2. Speech is broken and distorted by frequent errors.

1. Unable to construct comprehensible sentences.

Interactional strategies

4. Interacts effectively and readily participates and follows the discussion.

3. Use of interactive strategies is generally adequate but at times experiences some difficulty

in maintaining interaction consistently.

2. Interaction ineffective. Can seldom develop an interaction.

1. Understanding and interaction minimal.

APPENDIX XI:

Simulation Lesson Plans

Simulation One

Role play

Duration: 90 minutes for preparation/ 90 minutes for the simulation/ 90 minutes for the

follow-up.

Topic: getting a job/ part one

Description:

This simulation contains two halves; the first half deals with the job interview role play

followed by the second half which simulates company board meeting to decide on the best fit

for the job. The meeting includes interviewer from the role play, human resources manager,

chief executive officer, and president of the company.

The first half of the simulation is a role play. Students’ aim in the role play is to answer

appropriately the interview questions and a profile that includes each student’s qualifications

is created for later use in the simulation. This task also stimulates interaction under pressure

which students might be confronted with in the future.

There are five interviewers interviewing fifteen applicants three for each. The students will

watch a video modelling job interview in the preparation stage. The applicants will receive

role cards, job advertisement and a homework sheet.

Before the role play students are required to prepare a CV.

Aims

Enable students to answer questions in a job interview.

Enable students to communicate with interviewer, especially describing oneself capacities and

talking about qualifications and experiences.

The aim of this role play is to prepare for the next simulation which will be based on

the data collected from this task.

Preparation Stage

Duration:1hour and a half

Language Focus

Function: describing personal qualities, weaknesses, ambition, and achievements.

Vocabulary: personality adjectives, interview questions and answers and expressions

used to ask for repetition.

Teaching aids

A job interview animated video taken from www.liguahouse.com, and a homework sheet

included job advertisement downloaded from www.careerfaqs.com.

Presentation

The students watch a job interview downloaded from www.liguahouse.com that shows

an applicant being interviewed for project coordinator position and then do the

following tasks:

A. Watch the video and put true or false to the following statements.

1. Andrea has always been interested in the British/American language and culture.

2. His current job mainly involves preparing budgets for projects.

3. He has worked as part of a team.

4. He had to replace one of the speakers at a British Council event.

5. He believes the job he is being interviewed for is tailored to his skills and qualifications.

6. His most rewarding achievement has been successfully completing his university degree.

7. His main weakness is handling pressure.

8. His long-term ambition is to start his own business. (This activity is taken

fromwww.linguahouse.com/ex)

The students negotiate and compare their answers with each other.

B. Watch again, in groups of four and answer the following questions(students negotiate their

interpretation through paraphrasing, asking or answering questions, add contextual

clarification, verification or repetition):

- To help students advance their negotiation they were provided with the

expression they can use to ask for repetition if there is a misunderstanding:

I’m afraid I’m not quite clear what you mean by that.

I’m sorry; I didn’t quite follow what you said about …

I’m afraid I don’t understand what you mean.

I’m afraid I didn’t get your last point. Could you go over it again please?

1. What is the first question the interviewer asked in the job interview? And how did the

interviewee answer it?

2. What is the major weakness for the applicant? What can you say about it?

3. How did the applicant turn his weakness to a positive quality?

4. What are the long term goals for the applicant? How can you evaluate them?

5. What are the adjectives the interviewee used to describe his personality traits,

qualifications, abilities and skills?

The teacher goes around monitor the discussion and correct when necessary. When

finishing the discussion. Finally students answer the questions with the whole class.

The teacher corrects the answers and explains some of the questions asked in job

interviews and how job seekers can effectively answer them.

While explaining how to answer interview questions, the teacher emphasizes the

importance of using the right adjectives to impress the interviewer. S/he then adds

some other adjectives: communicative, flexible, organised, committed, competent,

diligent, recognised, Impactful, loyal, methodical, and conscientious.

Here are some job interview questions:

Tell me about yourself?

How do you handle pressure?

Why do you want to work for this company?

What do you feel you have to offer this company?

What personal weakness has caused you the greatest difficulty on the job?

What would you say has been your most rewarding accomplishment?

What are your goals for the future?

What do you think you'll be doing in five years' time?

What were your previous jobs?

What experience did you gain from your previous jobs?

What qualifications do you have?

What can you bring to this role?

Can you tell me of a time when you solved an important problem?

Can you give me an example of when you have motivated yourself to do something you

didn’t want to do?

What is your greatest achievement?

What are your strengths?

At the end of the session, students are assigned to do homework. They are asked to

read a job advertisement (about personal assistant job in Sharpfield insurance company) and

prepare a CV accordingly. To help students, the teacher explains the job advertisement and

gives a CV model taken from www.linguahouse.com to help leaners write their own CVs.

Role Play Phase

Duration:1hour and a half

Language Focus

Function: describing personal qualities, weaknesses, ambition, and achievements.

Vocabulary: personality adjectives, interview questions and answers

Teaching aids

Job advertisement, CV prepared by students, interview evaluation form downloaded from

https://www.smu.edu/~/media/Site/BusinessFinance/HR/pdf/Recruitment/CandidateInterview

EvaluationForm.ashx?la=en and role cards.

Timing: The time of the role play is one hour and a half; the teacher explains briefly

what will happen in the role play, role cards are then distributed. The teacher ensures

that every student knows his/her role and what he/she has to do. All the former steps

are assumed to be done in 15minutes. One hour and ten minutes are devoted to the role

play itself.

Classroom arrangement: students reshape the classroom furniture according to the

following diagram. This step may take 2 minutes.

Interviewer A Interviewers B

Controller

Apl x1 Apl y1 Apl z 1 Apl x2 Apl y2 Apl z2

Interviewer C Interviewer D Interviewer E

Apl x3 Apl y 3Apl z3 Apl x4 Apl y4 Apl z4 Apl x5 Apl y5 Apl z5

Students will be divided into five groups including one interviewer and three

applicants as shown in the diagram. They take their position.

Production

1. The teacher should ensure that his students understand what they are supposed to do

(answer the interviewer question in the appropriate way so as to leave the desired impact

on the interviewer).

2. Students start the interviews. The interviewer reads carefully the applicants CVs and starts

asking questions. Each interview takes from 7 to 10 minutes.

3. The interviewers fill in the interview evaluation form for each interviewee while

interviewing them.

4. The teacher will monitor the role play without any interference and write down the

noticeable mistakes.

Some Models of Role Cards

You are ……………..

You have experience; you had difficult

president in you last job. You are

running of money and you are in a

desperate need for the job.

You are…………………….

You had three had interviews before

this interview. You have to overcome

this failure by succeeding in this one.

You are …………………..

Before you enter to the interview you

have hear that the selection of the

candidates after the interview is not

credible and appearance is what matters.

You are……………….

You have heard that he president who

you are going to work for, if you pass

the interview, is nervous, not easy to

deal with.

You are…………………….

Your turn is about to came, you noticed

that you forget your CV at home. It is a

prerequisite to attend the interview.

They call you to entre.

You are……………………

You have heard from applicants who

have been interviewed before you that

working under pressure is the most

required qualification. You quit your

last job because you could not handle

the pressure of workload.

You are the interviewer

You have to ask many questions about

personal, professional, language

qualifications. Focus on the team work,

handling pressure, multitask abilities.

You accept no delays or incomplete

documents.

You did not want to interview anyone

but your superiors asked to do that.

You have to write down description of

applicants’ answers while interviewing.

You are the interviewer

You have to ask many questions about

personal, professional, language

qualifications. Focus on the team work,

handling pressure, multitask abilities.

You accept no delays or incomplete

documents.

You wanted to take a day off from work

but instead they assigned you to

interview the new applicants.

You have to write down description of

applicants’ answers while interviewing.

Simulation

Duration: 90 minutes for preparation/ 90 minutes for the simulation/ 90 minutes for the

follow-up.

Topic: Getting a job/ part Two

Description:

This simulation is the second part of ‘getting a job’ simulation. In this simulation interviewers

from the first part (role play), human resource manager, president of Sharpfields Insurance

office in Brisbane, and chief executive officer CEO meet in order to select the best fit for the

job.

The students will listen to an audio explains how to make an effective decision. Each

participant will receive role card that includes all the information of what s/he should do.

Preparation Phase

Duration: 1hour and a half

Language Focus

Function: making decision

Vocabulary: expressions used for announcing decision. Expressions used to give

opinion, disagree, present counter argument, raise objection and announce a decision.

Teaching aids

Job advertisement downloaded for www.careerfaqs.com , a maze activity cards downloaded

from www.teachingenglish.org.uk, and a homework sheet.

Presentation

The teacher introduces what the simulation is about, by asking them to decide what to

do in these situations.

- Your teacher has given you an assignment to do, but you are busy these days. Your

classmates insist on arranging a meeting as soon as possible. What would do?

a. Convince your classmates to delay it a few days.

b. Surrender to your classmates’ insistence.

c. Take back you partnership in the assignment.

- A company that sells shampoo is running out of money and is about of bankruptcy.

What should the board of the company do?

a. Decrease the price of the shampoo to increase the sales.

b. Try to get a loan.

c. Release some workers.

Students provide different solutions for each situation and discuss them in groups of

four. The teacher tells students that they are engaged in decision making process.

The students will listen to an audio about making decision. They have to answer the

following questions:

What are the steps to make decision?

What are the methods of making decision? (Decision by authority, decision by majority,

decision by negative minority, decision by ranking, decision be unanimity, and decision by

consensus)

The teacher then tells students that sometimes decision is made by a group of people

like in the second and third situation above. Hence, when the discussion is raised,

there might be some disagreements. Here are some expressions used to state a point of

view, disagree, present a counter argument, and raise an objection (taken from Jones,

1983, p. 16)

I firmly believe that …

Presenting a point of view Don’t you agree that ……?

As I see it …

It’s quite clear to me that …

Do you really think so? Why’s that?

Disagreeing No, I’m afraid I don’t agree, because…

The main reason I disagree is…

Yes, but you must admit that…

Presenting counter-argument well, yes, but isn’t it also true to say that…

That’ true but don’t forget that…

That’s an interesting point, but you don’t seem realize that…

Raising objections surely, it depends on …

I agree on the whole, but I just can’t accept that point you

Made about…

I haven’t made up my mind about it because…

If you are undecided I’m in two minds about it because…

I’d rather not commit myself on that because…

I can see both sides of the argument.

The teacher gives also some expressions used to announce decision (Jones, 1983, p.

5):

We’ve come to the conclusion that…

We consider that…

We have a proposal to make…

Our decision is as follows…

In our view the best option is…

This is what we think the best decision.

Practice

Students are grouped in groups of four to discuss some situations and thus apply the different

steps of making decision they learnt.

The teacher asks students to make decision about the following situation: you have

won one million euros and want to spend it in the best possible way. The teacher

explains the situation to the students.

Students are grouped in groups of five; they receive cards one by one. They will read the first

card, discuss different options and come up with a decision. Teacher will take the card and

give them the next card to discuss its options and decide whether their first decision was

correct. They do the same thing with card two (make decision and then read its implications in

the next card).

The teacher prompts students to discuss and evaluate their options until they come up

with a decision by using the expressions mentioned above in the discussion.

Simulation Phase

Duration: 1hour and a half

Language Focus

Function: making decision

Vocabulary: expressions used for announcing decision and evaluating opinion.

Teaching aids

Four copies of each student CV used in job interview, homework sheet from the role play, the

evaluation form of each interviewee competed by interviewers in the role play and role cards.

The briefing

Timing: The time of the simulation is one hour and a half. The teacher explains what

students should do in the simulation in ten minutes and then distributes the role cards

in order to leave students the chance to step inside the function they supposed to do

and the rest one hour and fifteen minutes are devoted to the simulation per se.

Classroom arrangement: The students reshape the classroom furniture according to

the following diagram.

Each board meeting contains interviewers from the role play session, human resources

manager, chief executive officer, and president of the company. Thus, their

distribution will be as follows: the teacher should make sure not to put the interviewer

with his/her interviewees from the role play to avoid subjective decision.

Controller Board meeting of Board meeting of company A company B

Board meeting of Board meeting of Board meeting of Company C company D company E

Production

1. The teacher first should explain the aim of the simulation which is deciding on the best fit

for personal assistant job. Besides drawing students’ attention to how they should

negotiate ideas, change mind, and make decision. The teacher provides some expressions

that they might need in order to solve misunderstanding problems:

I’m afraid I am not quite clear what you mean by that.

I’m sorry; I didn’t quite follow what you said about…

I’m afraid I don’t understand what you mean.

I’m afraid I didn’t get your last point. Could you go over it again please?

2. Before students start the simulation, they revise with the teacher all the steps of making

decision. They form groups as shown in the diagram, take their positions and follow the

steps (identify the decision to be made, examine data and resources in hand (applicants’

CV, and interviewers’ evaluation sheet of each applicant), establish criteria(already

established in the job advertisement and finally make the decision)

3. At this stage, students are given the role cards. They read carefully the role cards.

4. In the meeting (simulation), participants should read the CV of each applicant and the

human resources manager will ask the interviewer to report the interview outcomes to the

other participants. The participants will discuss their opinion about the applicant who

fulfils the job criteria. Each participant will give a mark out of ten to the candidate, the HR

writes the scores on the board, and then they move to the next applicant. At the end scores

will be calculated and the one, who has high score, win the job. Then the CEO announces

the decision about the identity of the applicant X to be hired.

5. The teacher watches the simulation without participation and note down the occurring

errors for the follow-up session.

6. All the procedures are videotaped.

Follow-up Session

Duration: one hour and a half

Teaching aids:

Video recording of the simulation

Procedure:

The students are asked to explain briefly what they did and why.

The students will watch a video recording of the simulation and then are asked to evaluate the

simulation discourse by asking these questions:

How participants interact together?

Did they make the decision successfully?

What are the language mistakes you notice?

Did they make the right decision?

What was their method for making the decision?

Did they weigh up their options successfully before making decision?

If you could do this simulation over again, what would do differently?

What do you think you have learnt from this simulation? (Adopted from Jones book ‘eight

simulations’ (1983)).

The students discuss these questions in pairs, listen to each other opinion and evaluate the

decision making process they watched in the video, at the end each group chooses two

students to report their evaluation to the whole class while the other students listen and make

comments. This task helps encourage students to interact and evaluate ideas; consequently

the behavioural performance will be addressed. The teacher will be engaged also in the whole

group discussion. (This task may take 30 minutes)

Since the simulation is undertaken in the language class thus more focus will be on the

language errors. The errors are collected by teacher from the simulation session and by

students after watching the simulation video. Besides, the teacher focuses on the language for

successful communication to not inhibit the students from participating in the future

simulation by focusing only on their failure.

Model Role Cards

Davis: Human resources manager

HR

Three applicants are qualified for the

final selection

Open the meeting and explain the

purpose of the meeting.

Bell: Human resources manager HR

There is an urgent need for new

personal assistant for the president.

You want experienced, organised and

hard worker.

Robinson: the chief executive officer

CEO

Your personal assistant is a hard worker

but needs always a lot of time to solve

problems. Flexibility is required.

Carter: interviewer

The interviews went good but you are not

sure which prioritize which;

organisational and time management

skills or the ability to multitask daily

workload.

Donald/ interviewer

You worked as PA before with low

salary. You are not with Burns (CEO)

suggestion to decrease the personal

assistant salary. The most important

characteristic of personal assistant should

be discretion and confidentiality.

Burns: the chief executive officer

CEO

There is solvency; hence a new

employee will make the situation worse.

Decide on the salary of the candidate

who wins the job. (35 Australian

dollars per year).

Anderson: President of Sharpfieds

insurance office in Brisbane.

You had several personal assistants

worked with you but they quit because of

the heavy workload they have to do,

hence you need someone who can handle

pressure and patient. But the interviewer

did not report if the candidates are patient

or not.

Dean: President of Sharpfieds insurance office

in Brisbane.

The previous personal assistant attended meeting

with you, but she could not manage appointment

with CEO of other company neither communicate

with other people in English. English proficiency

and management skills are so important.

Simulation Two

(Inspired by Jones (1983) Simulation ‘Anglebury’)

Duration: 90 minutes for preparation/ 90 minutes for the simulation/ 90 minutes for the

follow-up.

Topic: Teachers’ meeting

Teaching aids

Meeting agenda

Description:

In this simulation there are two groups of participants each including ten participants; students

play the role of teachers of different modules and the head of the department. The students

will get the knowledge needed to perform in the simulation by watching a video illustrating

the teachers’ meeting.

A week before the simulation, students are asked to interview other students to find out the

problems are suffering from.

Aims

Enable students to make decisions after discussing opinions.

Enable students to communicate with others in order to reach an agreement about a decision

Preparation Phase

Duration: 1hour and a half

Language Focus

Function: discussion and problem solving.

Vocabulary: discussion expressions.

Presentation

The teacher asks students about their problems in their studies at the university. The

questions will help students to understand what the simulation is about.

Do you have problems at the university? What are they?

Can you solve these problems alone? If no who is responsible for solving them?

What can you do in order to make the staff of the university take an action towards solving

these problems?

Teacher explains to students that generally before solving any problem, a discussion

would be a good idea to reach an effective consensus. When discussion takes place,

these expressions are used:

It’d be a good idea to….

Why don’t they….

I wonder if anyone’s thought of…

What they ought to do in this: …

It’d be much better to …

Wouldn’t be better idea to… (Taken from Jones, 1983, p.5)

The teacher asks students to put these expressions in meaningful sentences.

Practice

Students in groups discuss the following problems in order to reach a decision about the best

solution. Group’s members exchange their places with other and report their groups’

discussion ideas and decision.

Problem 1: you and your friends are suffering from weak pronunciation; think about what to

do in order to enhance it.

Problem 2: students outside the classroom are making noise, you cannot concentrate on your

lessons; how would reduce the noise?

Problem 3: your teachers do not notice you even if you do your assignments on time and try

to participate always. You might have a bad mark for your TD mark. How could you make

your teachers notice you?

Problem 4: you find yourself spending a lot of money these days. What economies in your

living costs can you make? How much can you manage to save per week? (Adopted from

Jones book (1983))

Students are asked before the simulation to make an informal interview with students from

other groups and organise them in a list. Then the teacher announces the meeting agenda.

Simulation phase

Duration: 1hour and a half

Language Focus

Function: discussion/ problem solving

Vocabulary: discussion expressions

Teaching aids

Students’ lists of students’ problems at the university and students list of possible solutions

for the problems.

The briefing

Timing: The time of the simulation is one hour and a half; the teacher explains briefly

what will happen in the simulation. Students will be given time for video (used in the

previous session) watching if requested to remind students of how teachers discuss

problems and options reach a decision. The teacher ensures that every student knows

his/her role and what he/she has to do. All the former steps are assumed to be done in

15 minutes. One hour and ten minutes are devoted to the simulation itself.

Classroom arrangement: students reshape the classroom furniture according to the

following diagram. This step may take 3minutes.

Controller Teachers’ group A

Teachers’ group B

Production

1. The teacher first should explain the aim of the simulation which is solving the students’

problems. Besides using the expressions they learned to discuss their option and

suggestions and to announce the final decision to the rest of the group.

2. Before students start the simulation, they should read carefully the problems they find after

the interviews and revise the possible solutions they come up with in the last session.

3. The teacher watches the simulation without interfering and takes notes of students’

mistakes.

4. All the procedures are videotaped.

Follow-up discussion

The students discuss their answers to these questions:

What difficulties did you have in expressing yourself?

Did you get involved in what you are doing or just it was just a language exercise?

Follow-up Session

Duration: one hour and a half

Teaching aids:

Video recording of the simulation

Procedure:

The same procedure, as in simulation 01, is applied.

Simulation Three (this simulation is included in Chapter Four in sub section

4.2.8 Simulation Lesson Plan, p.139)

Simulation Four

(Inspired by Jones (1983) Simulation ‘The Language Centre’)

Duration: 90 minutes for preparation/ 90 minutes for the simulation/ 90 minutes for the

follow-up.

Topic: University Repair (building of letters repair) plenary meeting

Description:

This simulation is about university repair prepared by students. The participants are involved

in repairing their faculty. It includes five groups. Each group represents a different function

and makes decision about different issues starting from classroom design to university

facilities. The decisions made by participants are similar to real-life ones.

Aims

Enable students to talk about issues they observe at the university.

Enable students to make a decision about the possible repair they may apply to solve the

university problems.

Preparation Phase

Duration: 1hour and a half

Language Focus

Function: agreeing disagreeing, and asking for clarifying opinion.

Vocabulary: university facilities.

Teaching aids

List of expressions of agreement and disagreement;

Presentation

The teacher draws his students’ attention to problems that are going to be dealt with in

the simulation. She introduces the topic by asking them:

How can you describe your university? Is it modern, purpose-built, or traditional old

building?

Which do you prefer to work in, study in, stay in for a while and live in permanently? Do you

like modern or old buildings?

Describe the worst possible building you can imagine to work in, study in, stay in and live in

(this question is Adopted from Jones, 1983, p. 23)

The students should be grouped. The teacher then asks students to discuss what they

want to change in their university, how they want it to be, and what are the solutions

to each problem? Afterwards, the students exchange the groups and report their ideas

and opinions to the new group. The aim of this task is to allow students to express

their opinion about their university from their own perspective as in the simulation

they will express their opinion from the teachers, administrators, and faculty members

perspective and to assess students’ ability to agree, disagree, and ask for clarification

in case there is a misunderstanding. (the idea of the task is taken from Jones, ibid,

p.25)

When they finish, the teacher draws the learners’ attention to the function of language that

they have to use which is agreeing, disagreeing, and asking for clarification. At this stage, the

teacher gives a list of expressions used to state an opinion, express agreement, disagreement,

and a need for clarification. (Adopted from Jones, ibid, p.24)

Stating an opinion As I see it…

The point is …

As far as I’m concerned …

Finding out other How do you feel about that point?

people’s views What are your views on this point?

Have you got any further points to make on this item?

Do you agree with what’s been said so far?

Anything to add?

Agreeing I absolutely agree.

completely I think so, too.

I’m with you all the way

Yes, I think you’re absolutely right.

I agree up to a considerable extent.

Agreeing I agree up to a point, but …

partly I see what you mean, but …

That’s true in a way, but …

Most of what you say is true, but …

Apart from/except for the last point, I agree with you.

Disagreeing I don’t really agree.

I think you’re wrong.

I’m afraid I can’t accept that.

I don’t really think that’s right.

I beg to differ, I see that (it may work if we…)

Needing I’m afraid I don’t follow why…

clarification but that’s the point of …?

I don’t quite see why…

Could you tell us why…?

Practice

And then the teacher asks the students to repeat the task using expressions they

learned.

Simulation Phase

Duration:1hour and a half

Language Focus

Function: agreeing disagreeing, and asking for clarifying opinion.

Vocabulary: university facilities, classroom design vocabulary.

Teaching aids

A slip of paper, a badge for each participant, committee meeting agenda

The briefing

Timing: The time of the simulation is one hour and a half; the teacher explains briefly

what will happen in the simulation and that each committee will have committee

meeting, informal consultation sessions, and a plenary meeting. There are slips of

paper that include each participant’s role and agenda items that they have to discuss.

Students will be given deadline for each meeting. The teacher ensures that every

student knows his/her role and what he/she has to do. All the former steps are assumed

to be done in 10 minutes. One hour and twenty minutes are devoted to the simulation

itself.

Classroom arrangement: the classroom will be arranged like the following diagram

for the committee meeting and the informal consultation sessions. The five

committees are:

Group A department Administration (represented by the head of the department)

Group B faculty Administration (represented by the Dean)

Group C teachers of English language (representative selected by all the teachers)

Group D teachers of Arabic language (representative selected by all the teachers)

Group E teachers of French language (representative selected by all the teachers)

Group F students from the three departments (representative selected by all the

students of each faculty)

The groups of teachers are grouped together because they have the same interest and

experience the same difficulties.

Controller

group A group B

groups C, D, and E

However when it comes to the plenary meeting, the classroom arrangement changes to look

like ‘an assembly hall’ as mentioned by Jones (1983, p. 72)

Controller

The chair of

the plenary meeting

Committee member

Production

1. The teacher gives the slip of paper that explains each committee member’s role and the

agenda items each committee is concerned with. She makes sure that the participants know

the deadline for each meeting.

2. Allows 15 minute reading agenda items carefully and asks participants to think about their

views on each agenda item before starting the committee discussion.

3. Asks participants to fill in the badge and stick it on their clothes and explains what to do in

the committee meeting (make decisions about the agenda items allotted to them and

discuss opinions).

4. Once the 30 minutes of the committee meeting finish, the consultation session begins. The

teacher explains to the participants that they are allowed to move from one committee to

other and in order to ask for advice and information concerning their decisions. The

participants are allowed to return to their original committee and report their findings after

the discussions with the other committees. Then each committee makes its own

recommendation.

5. The consultations finish in about 15 minutes and the plenary meeting starts. The classroom

should be arranged according to diagram two. The teacher chooses a participant who wants

to chair the meeting.

6. The teacher makes sure that all the agenda items are discussed.

7. The Plenary meeting is videotaped.

Follow-up Session

Duration: one hour and a half

Teaching aids:

Audio recording of the simulation

Procedure:

The same procedure as simulation one is followed.

Simulation Five

(Similar to Jones (1983) Simulation ‘world news magazine’)

Duration: 90 minutes for preparation/ 90 minutes for the simulation/ 90 minutes for the

follow-up.

Topic: News programme

Description:

This simulation is a straightforward simulation that deals with news programme. Each group

of participants work separately to prepare for the program.

This simulation needs a thorough preparation in advance.

Preparation Phase

Duration :1hour and a half

Language Focus

Function: broadcasting news

Vocabulary: opening news programme and signing off the news expressions.

Teaching aids

BBC news programme downloaded from http://youtube.com/watch?v=q7ZBnNu_iAI, list of

expressions for starting and signing off the news, and articles from different websites (see

Appendix VIII, CD)

Presentation

Do you watch news programmes in English? Can you describe them?

What makes you like watching the news?

What kind of news you like to hear?

The students watch the BBC news programme and answer the following questions:

How did the presenter start the news programme?

How did she present the headlines?

How can you describe her language?

The teacher gives a list of phrases the news anchor can use in the news:

Tonight on the … news,

Presenters start the news like this: This is the … news, I am (anchor’s name), the headlines at

8 o’clock:…

Good evening and welcome to the … news at six. Here the

headlines:

Then; hello, good evening/ good morning, thanks for joining us

on (name of news agency) news. start reading the first

news script.

And in other news

News anchors move from one Also tonight

news to another: Also on tonight’s programme

… and that’s all from us, good night.

News anchors sign off That’s the nightly news for this Wednesday night.

the news … and that’s part of our world tonight.

Thank you for watching/ thank you for staying with us.

Tips for writing news script are:

It should be no longer than five sentences.

It should answer the following questions: who, what, when, where, and how?

Use simple language that listeners can understand.

Use the right tense: present or past, active voice and the reported speech.

Practice

The teacher asks students in groups:

1. To read news articles, summarize key points; report the key points in their own words

following the tips above (write a report in no more than 50 words).

2. Exchange reports with other groups to criticise.

3. Prepare a related report from the news location.

4. Rehearse and broadcast the news using the phrases above. (if this task is not

completed in the session, it is assigned as homework for the next session)

Simulation Phase

Duration:1hour and a half

Language Focus

Function: broadcasting news

Vocabulary: opening news programme and signing off the news expressions.

Teaching aids

BBC news programme downloaded from http://youtube.com/watch?v=q7ZBnNu_iAI, list of

expression for starting and signing off the news.

Teaching aids

Microphone and background picture for the news.

The briefing

Timing: The time of the simulation is one hour and a half; the teacher explains briefly

what will happen in the simulation. The teacher ensures that every student knows

his/her role and what s/he has to do. All the former steps are assumed to be done in 10

minutes.

Classroom arrangement: the classroom will be arranged like news studio.

Assigning roles: each team should consist of four participants. One is the director,

two participants are reporters and the last is news anchor.

Production

1. Each group go to its place in the classroom receives the first two news articles. In 20

minutes, they read, summarize, rephrase key points, and rehearse the news.

2. Then, they receive the next two news articles repeat the same process.

3. Each team prepares a report for four news items.

4. The news programmes start and they are videotaped.

5. To add a surprising factor to the simulation and challenge participants to use the

language creatively and naturally, a slip of paper added to the news items as a

breaking news without informing the participants before the simulation.

Follow-up Session

Duration: One hour and a half

Teaching aids:

Audio recording of the simulation

Procedure:

The students are asked to explain briefly what they did and why.

The students listen to an audio recording of the simulation and then are asked to evaluate the

simulation discourse by asking these questions:

How successful the broadcasts were?

What makes you say this simulation is successful?

Did presenters do what they have to do?

What are the language mistakes you notice?

How you simulation is different from real news programme.

Students behavioural and language mistakes are addressed.

Simulation Six

Duration: 90 minutes for preparation/ 90 minutes for the simulation/ 90 minutes for the

follow-up.

Topic: Leaders debate

Description:

This simulation is more complex because it deals with a political debate (we tried to keep it

simple as it is dealt with from students’ perspectives and from politicians). It involves more

participants than the former simulations. Five participants played the role of leaders

competing in the elections and one host of the TV channel. Other students played the role of

the audience and they are allowed to participate in the debate by asking questions to the

candidates. This simulation aims at developing learners skills of presenting their policies,

opinions, and criticising other candidates’ arguments on hot-seated issues in the country.

This simulation needs a thorough preparation in advance.

Preparation Phase

Duration: 1hour and a half

Language Focus

Function: convincing, persuading and rephrasing

Vocabulary: expressions to convince, expressions to rephrase, and vocabulary related to

politics and economy; deficit, tax, invest, poverty, policies, debt, labour…etc.

Teaching aids

Leaders debate in UK on Sky News downloaded from

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Sv2AOQBd_s.

Presentation

The teacher starts the lesson with small talk about the following questions:

How do you usually elect your president?

Did you attend his election campaign?

What makes you convinced that he is the right person to vote for?

Have you ever watched, on TV, leaders’ debate?

If yes, what happens in these debates?

Then, the students watch the leaders’ debate downloaded from Sky News (from

minute 4 to minute 24 to see how this kind of debate starts, and from minute 52 after

one hour to 59 minute to see how leaders close their statements in the debate) and

answer the following questions:

What are the main parts of the debate?

What did the candidates say at the beginning?

What happened after the student had asked the question? How did each candidate reinforce

his arguments and defeat others?

What are the main language expressions each candidate used to convince the audience in the

opening and closing statement? (students negotiate their understanding and interpretations

about these questions in groups after the first, second and third watching)

The teacher gives list of expressions; learners can use to convince people to vote for them:

Expressions to be persuasive:

If I am…,…

This is not a matter of opinion. I am saying this because it is a fact.

I think …, I promise…, support me.

Expression to criticize others’ plans:

(the opponent’s plan) will not work because, it has not worked in the past.

(the opponent’s plan) will lead to undesirable consequences for everyone. We can solve this

by simply going with (your view point) in the first place.

I am sure (my opponent) has convinced some of you that their plan is working, but they have

not been honest with you.

Expressions to rephrase and explain unclear words:

In other words …

To put it another way…

That is to say…

To put simply…

What I am trying to say is …

…Which basically/ simply means…

Practice

The students perform a task in groups of three in which they prepare themselves to debate

to win the position of delegate of the group.

1. They prepare in 15 minutes opening statement and rehearse it in front of their groups.

The teacher helps learners to use the expressions they learned to persuade their

classmates. Then they try to prepare themselves for any question they expect that their

classmates would ask in the debate. Finally they write and rehearse the closing

statement.

2. The candidates chosen, one from each group, take their places in front of their

classmates, and start presenting their policies and plans and the rest of the class

perform the role of the audience. The teacher controls the debate and allows two

questions to be asked, at the end candidates close the debate by their statements. The

teacher corrects the candidates’ mistakes and gives them advice for better performance

in the simulation.

Simulation Phase

Duration: 1hour and a half

Language Focus

Function: convincing, persuading and rephrasing

Vocabulary: expressions to convince, and expressions to rephrase, expressions related

to politics and economy; deficit, tax, invest, poverty, policies, debt, labour…etc.

Teaching aids

Leaders debate in UK on Sky News downloaded from

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Sv2AOQBd_s.

The briefing

Timing: The time of the simulation is one hour and a half; the teacher explains briefly

what will happen in the simulation. The teacher ensures that every student knows

his/her role and what s/he has to do. All the former steps are assumed to be done in 10

minutes.

Classroom arrangement: the classroom will be arranged as follows:

Assigning roles: each team should consist of four participants. One candidate is

selected to represent the group (party).

Candidates Controller

Newscaster

Audience

Production

1. Each group of participants prepare, in 15 minutes, opening statement and rehearse it in

front of their groups’ members. Then they negotiate about their party’s principles and

plans. The teacher helps learners to use the expressions they learned to persuade their

classmates. Then they try to prepare themselves for any question they expect that their

classmates would ask in the debate. Finally they write and rehearse the closing

statement.

2. The candidates chosen, one from each group, take their places in front of their

classmates, and start presenting their policies and plans and the rest of the class

perform the role of the audience. The teacher (as a director) controls the debate and

allows two questions to be asked, at the end candidates close the debate by their

statements. All the former steps are videotaped.

Follow-up Session

Duration: one hour and a half

Teaching aids:

Audio recording of the simulation

Procedure:

The same procedure, applied in the former simulations is followed.

الملخص

االهتمامعلى وجه الخصوص الشفوي التواصل أصبحالدولي، االندماج، محرك تواصلضوء الطلب المتزايد على العلى

فعيل مهارة لت التي يستعملها االساتذة معلمي اللغة اإلنجليزية. تعتبر المحاكاة واحدة من أكثر األنشطة المحتملةلاألول

مهارةيحقق في تأثير أنشطة المحاكاة على تدريس وتعلم الحالي البحث عملية التفاعل. خالللمتعلمين ل واالستماعالتحدث

البحثا سلط هذي. في الواقع، 1قسنطينة االخوة منتوري واالستماع في قسم اآلداب واللغة اإلنجليزية، جامعة التحدث

هملمحاكاة وكذلك آراء المعلمين وتوصياتلفوائد والتحديات التي يواجهونها من خالل الالضوء على كل من تصور الطالب

المحاكاة في ةينندما يقوم المعلمون بتطبيق تقع أنه إذانفترض أجنبية. اإلنجليزية كلغة اللغة قسمهذا النشاط في خدامالست

. السنة الثانية االستماع والتحدث لدى طالب كفاءة ، فإن هذا من شأنه أن يطورسنة ثانية اللغة اإلنجليزية كلغة أجنبية،قسم

الطالب اللغة اإلنجليزية كلغة أجنبية من شأنه أن يحفز مواقف صفوففي عليميةالمحاكاة الت تقنيةونفترض أيضا أن تطبيق

تعتمد هذه الدراسة على استبيان كما قبل وبعد االختبار كمنهجية بحث. لعينة مقارنةالاستخدمت دراسة .اهتمامهم و االيجابية

على أاالختبار التحدث التواصلي بعددرجات اختبار ظهر النتائج ان متوسط ت سنة ثانية. لغة انجليزية البط 40على وزع

في (t = 3.57و ) 1( في المجموعة التجريبية t = 2.90)ب 0.05 داللة االختبار عند مستوى قبلبكثير مما كان عليه

يسمح ال ذياالستماع ال تطور مهارةطفيف على تحفظ األولى معالفرضيتين قد تم تأكيد بالتالي .2 التجريبية المجموعة

٪( من الطالب في 80ة فقد تم التحقق منها أيضا حيث أن أكثر من )انيكامل. أما الفرضية الثبشكل األولى الفرضية ديتأكب

ا أقر معظم المعلمين بأثرهكلتا المجموعتين التجريبيتين كانوا متحمسين للغاية بعد تعاملهم مع المحاكاة. إلى جانب ذلك،

التعليم والتعلم نافعم زيادةوتوصيات بشأن كيفية تحسين و قد قدمت اقتراحاتيجابي على أداء الطلبة وبيئة الصف. والا

باستخدام تقنية المحاكاة.

.كفاءة االستماع ،كفاءة التحدث ،أنشطة المحاكاة : الكلمات المفتاحية

RESUME

À la lumière de la demande accrue en matière de communication, le moteur de l'intégration

international, la communication orale est devenue la préoccupation principale des enseignants

de la langue anglaise. La simulation est donc considérée comme l’activité primordiale que les

enseignants appliquent pour activer le langage et l'écoute des apprenants dans le processus

d'interaction. La présente recherche étudie l'impact des activités de simulation sur

l'enseignement et l'apprentissage de la parole et de l'écoute de la Langue Anglaise à

l'Université des Frères Mentouri, Constantine 1. L’étude met en lumière à la fois la perception

des étudiants sur les avantages et les défis qu'ils rencontrent par la simulation ainsi que les

opinions et les recommandations des enseignants pour exploiter cette activité en classe de

deuxième année d’anglais. Nous formulons les hypothèses que, lorsque les enseignants

appliquent la technique de simulation, cela permettrait d'améliorer la compétence des

étudiants de deuxième année en matière d'écoute et de parole; et, que l'application de la

technique d'enseignement de simulation dans les classes d’anglais stimulerait les attitudes

positives et l’intérêt des étudiants. Un échantillon d'étude de comparaison pré et post-test a été

utilisé comme méthode de recherche. De plus, cette étude est basée sur un questionnaire qui a

été distribué à 40 étudiants de deuxième année d'anglais. Les résultats démontrent que le score

des tests de discours communicatifs dans le post-test était significativement plus élevée que

dans le pré-test au niveau significatif de 0,05 avec (t = 2,90) dans le groupe expérimental 1 et

(t = 3,57) dans le groupe expérimental 2. La première hypothèse est partiellement confirmée.

La deuxième hypothèse est validée puisque plus de (80%) des étudiants dans les deux groupes

expérimentaux étaient fortement motivés. En outre, la plupart des enseignants ont reconnu

leur impact positif sur la performance des étudiants et l'environnement de la classe. Enfin, des

suggestions et des recommandations sont également formulées pour sur améliorer et

maximiser les avantages de l'enseignement et de l'apprentissage en utilisant la technique de

simulation.

Mots Clés : Les activités de simulation, la compétence d’écoute, la compétence de la parole.